Disposed

D.Vinodhini v. the Zonal Deputy Thasildar

Madras HC20 Sept 2024WP/27102/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the online rejection of her application for mutation of revenue records due to failure to furnish parent documents. Upon admitting the petition, the Court quashed the online rejection entry and directed the Thasildar to consider the petitioner's submission of parent documents within two weeks and

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned online rejection entry; directed the Thasildar to receive parent documents within two weeks and pass orders on merits within four weeks.

D.Vinodhini Vs the Zonal Deputy Thasildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.27102 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P No.27102 of 2024

¶7

D.Vinodhini ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The zonal Deputy Thasildar, Melmalaiyanur Taluk, Taluk Office, Melmalayanur, Villupuram District - 604 204.

¶10

The Thasildar, Mlmalaiyanur Taluk, Taluk Office, Melmalaiyanur, Villupuram District - 604 204.

¶11

The Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the

¶14

first respondent vide his proceedings in file No.2024/0103/07/371958 dated 09.05.2024 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to issue patta in

¶15

the names of the legal heirs of Late Mr.N.Dass i.e., (1) Mrs. Achammal, (2)

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶17

W.P.No.27102 of 2024

¶18

Mr.D.Vignesh and (3) Mrs. D.Vinodhini or mutate their names in the patta

¶19

No.424 within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Senthil Kumar

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Aggrieved by the information available in the on-line portal, rejecting the on-line application of the petitioner in application no. 2024/103/07/371958

¶24

by the first respondent, the petitioner has come up by way of this writ petition.

¶25

By consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondents, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was purchased

¶27

by the petitioner's father namely N.Dass Reddiyar under registered sale deed dated 14.02.2008, bearing document No.150/2008. Subsequently he died on

¶28

06.12.2021 leaving behind the petitioner, her mother Achammal and her

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶30

W.P.No.27102 of 2024

¶31

brother Vignesh, as his legal heirs. The petitioner submitted a on-line application in application No. 2024/103/07/371958 seeking mutation of the revenue records. As per the information furnished in the on-line portal, the application of the petitioner was rejected for her failure to furnish parent documents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents

¶33

without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, passed the impugned order and the copy of the order was also not furnished to the petitioner.

¶34

Mr.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents, on written instructions from the second respondent vide proceedings dated 19.09.2024, submits that during the local inspection, the petitioner failed to furnish the parent documents and therefore, the on-line application was rejected on 09.05.2024. However, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that no detailed order was passed by the second respondent and hence, the same was not communicated to the petitioner.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶36

W.P.No.27102 of 2024

¶37

Since the second respondent has not passed any detailed order rejecting the application of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned on-line entry as if the application of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner is directed to submit a copy of the parent documents before the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits and communicate the same to the petitioner within a further period of four weeks from the date of submission of the documents by the petitioner.

¶38

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶39

20.09.2024

¶40

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

¶41

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

4/6

W.P.No.27102 of 2024

The zonal Deputy Thasildar, Melmalaiyanur Taluk, Taluk Office, Melmalayanur, Villupuram District - 604 204.

¶47

The Thasildar, Mlmalaiyanur Taluk, Taluk Office, Melmalaiyanur, Villupuram District - 604 204.

¶48

The Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

W.P.No.27102 of 2024

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P No.27102 of 2024

20.09.2024

(1/2)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

D.Vinodhini v. the Zonal Deputy Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Vinodhini v. the Zonal Deputy Thasildar

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

[email protected] Vs the District Collector

S.Valarmathi, Vs the District Collector

Kannammal Vs the District Collector

D.Nagarajan Vs Inspector General of Registration

Mr.a.Muruganantham Vs the District Registrar

Ramachandran Vs the District Superintendent of Police