Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Mr.Uma Shanker A Square, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010. : RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the fifth respondent for survey and fix the boundaries of petitioner…
Judgment
W.P.No.10998 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 07.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQW.P.No.10998 of 2020andWMP No.13374 of 2020Mr.K.Mohan Doss : PetitionerVs.
The Chairman Cum Secretary to Government, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, M.A and W.S Department, Secretariat, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600009.
The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600002.
The Executive Engineer, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010.
The Assistant Engineer, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010.
The Thasildar,1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10998 of 2020 Madhavaram Taluk Office, Puzhal, Chennai- 600066.
The District Collector, Thiruvarur Collector Office Thiruvarur District.
Mr.Uma Shanker A Square, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010. : RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the fifth respondent for survey and fix the boundaries of petitioner patta property in situated Chennai District (Old Thiruvallur District), Madhavaram Taluk, Surapattu Village, Patta No.11517, Survey No.111/3A1, measuring an extent of 0-9.00 ares and the respondents not to interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner patta property without due process of law and proceeding further compound wall at petitioner vacant property and pass orders. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Lakshmi NarasimmanFor Respondents : Mrs.S.Deepika for R1 to R4 and R7 Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader for R5 and R6 ORDER2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10998 of 2020 The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the fifth respondent to survey and fix the boundaries of petitioner's patta property in Patta No.11517, comprised in Survey No.111/3A1, measuring an extent of 0-9.00 ares situated at Chennai District (Old Thiruvallur District), Madhavaram Taluk, Surapattu Village, and the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner's patta property without following due process of law and proceed further with the compound wall at petitioner's vacant property.2.
At the outset, it is submitted by learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 5 and 6 that it may only be appropriate that the petitioner's submits a fresh application seeking survey, if any such application is filed, the same would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for petitioner.3. In view of the limited relief that is prayed, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with following directions:i) It is open to the petitioner to submit an online application before the fifth respondent seeking survey of the subject property. If any such online application is filed, fifth respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, after 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10998 of 2020issuing notice to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 4, adjacent land owners and all other interested parties including rival claimants, if any.ii) Though facts have been set out extensively in the affidavit, this court does not propose to deal with it while leaving it open to fifth respondent to call for any document/conduct enquiry to satisfy itself of the petitioner's entitlement for requesting survey of subject property. iii) The entire process shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of uploading of web copy without waiting for the receipt of certified copy.iv) There shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained till then. v) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law.
Operative part
Rights and contentions of the petitioner and all other interested parties are left open.4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10998 of 202007.08.2025Speaking (or) Non Speaking OrderNeutral Citation: Yes/NomrnTo1.The Chairman Cum Secretary to Government, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, M.A and W.S Department, Secretariat, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600009.2.The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600002.3.The Executive Engineer, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010.4.The Assistant Engineer, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Kilpuak, Chennai-600010.5.The Thasildar, Madhavaram Taluk Office, Puzhal, Chennai- 600066.6.The District Collector, Thiruvarur Collector Office5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10998 of 2020 Thiruvarur District. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10998 of 2020MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.(mrn)W.P.No.10998 of 202507.08.20257/7
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.