Quashed

Mrs.G.Valliammal v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC18 Jun 2024WP/15345/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras quashed an order rejecting a patta transfer petition due to lack of written reasons. The matter was remitted for de novo consideration with directions to hear all parties and interested persons within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remitted for de novo consideration with proper hearing; order to be passed within two months.

Mrs.G.Valliammal Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP.No.15345 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WP.No.15345 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.16667 of 2024

¶7

G.Valliammal .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The Tahsildar Sholinganallur Taluk No.1, 1^st Cross Street New Kumaran Nagar Sholinganallur, Tamil Nadu – 600 119

¶10

2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Sholinganallur Taluk No.1, 1^st Cross Street New Kumaran Nagar Sholinganallur, Tamil Nadu – 600 119

¶11

3.V.Kumaresan .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to impugned order issued by the 2^nd respondent Appl.No.2023/0103/02/212277 dated 21.06.2023 quash the same and consequently directing the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk (1^st respondent) and the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk (2^nd respondent) to issue the patta transfer in the name of G.Valliammal (Writ Petitioner) with the correct measurement of area to be in line with the computerized patta (Patta No.182) for the S.No.291/A (2.5 Ares) and 291/1D (1 Ares) earlier issued in the year 2003 in her husband's name deceased Mr.Gajendran S/o.Ratna Naicker, after removing the erroneous patta issued for the old S.No.291/A in the name of Kumaresan.V (3^rd respondent) by assigning new Survey No.291/1A2 (1.70 Ares). https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

1/4

¶14

WP.No.15345 of 2024

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kathiravan

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran for R1 & R2 Special Government Pleader

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Challenge has been made against the order of the second respondent,

¶19

quash the same and consequently direct the official respondents to issue patta transfer in the name of the petitioner.

¶20

It is the case of the writ petitioner that originally patta stood in the name of the petitioner's husband for the extent of 3.5 Ares. However, while transfer of patta in the name of the petitioner, the extent has been reduced. In this regard, she has given a representation for transfer of patta once again, however, now the impugned order has been passed without any reasons. Hence, this writ petition.

¶21

The learned Special Government Pleader fairly submitted that the impugned order do not contain any reasons and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/4

¶25

WP.No.15345 of 2024

¶26

Since, no adverse order is passed against the third respondent, notice

¶27

to the third respondent is dispensed with. With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶28

On perusal of the impugned order, it would indicate that the order is passed rejecting the request of the petitioner simply without indicating any reasons whatsoever. This Court is of the view that any order affecting the rights of the parties passed without assigning reasons is a nullity in the eye of law. Such view of the matter, the impugned order stands quashed and the matter is remitted back for a de novo consideration to the first respondent and the first respondent is directed pass appropriate order after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as any other interested persons within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶29

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶30

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

18.06.2024

¶32

dhk Index :Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/4

¶35

WP.No.15345 of 2024

¶36

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶37

dhk

¶38

¶39

1.The Tahsildar Sholinganallur Taluk No.1, 1^st Cross Street New Kumaran Nagar Sholinganallur, Tamil Nadu – 600 119

¶40

2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Sholinganallur Taluk No.1, 1^st Cross Street New Kumaran Nagar Sholinganallur, Tamil Nadu – 600 119

¶41

W.P.No.15345 of 2024

¶42

18.06.2024

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

4/4

Mrs.G.Valliammal v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.G.Valliammal v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Sureshchand Jain Vs the Deputy Director (HIU-2(3)

C.Sureshchand Jain Vs the Deputy Director (HIU-2(3)

S.Chidambara Saravanan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Deenadhayalan Vs the Thasildar

Salem Kadayampatti Vattara Kalanjiam Vs the Sub Registrar

M/S.Shriram Housign Finance Ltd, Vs the Sub-Registrar