VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Indhirani P v. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar

ALLOWED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
7 August 2026
Bench
Krishnan Ramasamyauthor
Case no.
WP 31250/2026

Judgment

ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the respondent.

¶2The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 23.06.2026 seeking issuance of patta in her name. However, without assigning any reasons and without issuing notice to the petitioner or affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the respondent has mechanically passed the impugned non-speaking order dated

29.06.2026. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. Page2 of 6

¶3Mr.P.Elayaraj Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner's representation came to be rejected on the ground that the relevant documents had not been furnished.

¶4Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶5A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the respondent has passed a non-speaking order without assigning any reasons and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Such an order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is therefore liable to be set aside.

¶6As far as the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the relevant documents were not furnished is concerned, if the relevant documents had not been furnished, the respondent ought to have either conducted an enquiry or provided an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the same and afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. Had such an opportunity been provided, the respondent would not have instructed the learned Page3 of 6 Government Counsel that the petitioner's request was rejected on the ground of non-filing of the relevant documents. Therefore, the failure is attributable to the respondent.

¶7In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 29.06.2026 is set aside. If any further document or clarification is required for consideration of the petitioner's request for issuance of patta, the respondent shall issue an appropriate notice to the petitioner specifying the documents or particulars required. Upon receipt of such notice, it is open to the petitioner to furnish the requisite documents and particulars. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶8With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. 07-08-2026 Asi Page4 of 6 To The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Udumalaipettai Taluk, Tiruppur District. Page5 of 6 WPoNo.o31250oofo2026 KRISHNANoRAMASAMY,oJ. Asi WPoNo.o31250oofo2026 07-08-2026 Page6oofo6

Case details

Parties and counsel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Indhirani P W/o. Palanisamy, 2/265B Temple Garden, Rasagoundanpalayam, Kalivelampatti Post, Manickapuram, Palladam, Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu -641 664 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Udumalaipettai Taluk, Tiruppur District. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the files of the Respondent herein in File No.2026/0103/32/037223 dated 29.06.2026 as reflected in Application Status stage in Department of Survey and Settlement, Government of Tamilnadu portal rejecting the petitioners application for mutation of patta in her name dated 23.06.2026 in respect of land situated in Survey No.79/1A in Anthiyur Village, Udumalaipettai Taluk, and quash the same, while so directing the Respondent Page1 of 6 to grant patta in her name in lieu of the petitioners application vide application No.2026/0103/32/037223 dated 23.06.2026. For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Syed Abdul Wakeel for M/s.A.P.Karventhan For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Elayaraj Kumar Special Government Pleader

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.