Disposed¶35

A.Kurinchinathan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC21 Feb 2025WP(MD)/4792/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD)No.4792 of 2025; online rejection order; non-speaking order; natural justice; denial of personal hearing; four boundaries; sub division of land; patta mutation; Re-Survey No.252/6C; Ayan Samuthirapatti Village; Natham Taluk; Dindigul; Tahsildar; Firka Surveyor; Revenue Divisional Officer; remand; eight weeks; disposal of writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned online rejection order set aside; matter remitted to the second respondent to afford the petitioner a personal hearing, receive documentary evidence, and pass final orders on merits within eight weeks; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs. ¶35

A.Kurinchinathan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned online rejection order passed by the second respondent — a non-speaking order issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing to establish the four boundaries of his property — should be set aside.

¶29

Court's answer

The impugned online rejection order does not disclose any opportunity given to the petitioner to produce relevant documents, and is therefore set aside on the limited ground that the petitioner was deprived of a personal hearing to meet the second respondent's objections regarding the four boundaries.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The matter is remitted to the second respondent, who shall afford the petitioner a personal hearing to produce documentary evidence, satisfy the authority on the four definite boundaries and physical possession, and then pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by A.Kurinchinathan seeking Certiorarified Mandamus against an online rejection order passed by the Tahsildar, Natham Taluk (second respondent), refusing sub division of the petitioner's land (Re-Survey No.252/6C, extents 4 cents and 2 cents, Ayan Samuthirapatti Village) and separate mutation of patta, applied for via online petition registration No.2024/0105/13/455335 dated 23.12.2024. Holding (P.B. Balaji, J.): the impugned order was admittedly not a speaking order and did not disclose any opportunity to the petitioner to produce documents; it was set aside on the limited ground of depriving the petitioner of a personal hearing to meet the objection that he could not show the four boundaries of his property. The matter was remitted to the second respondent to hold a personal hearing, receive documentary evidence, verify the four definite boundaries and physical possession, and pass final orders on merits within eight weeks. Writ petition disposed of accordingly; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.4792 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.4792 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.3484 of 2025

¶7

A.Kurinchinathan ... Petitioner

¶8

/Vs./

¶9

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul Revenue Division, Dindigul.

¶10

2.The Tahsildar, Natham Taluk, Natham, Dindigul District

¶11

3.The Firka Surveyor, Natham Taluk, Natham, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of rejection impugned through online passed by the 2^nd respondent dated Nil and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein to carry out the work of Sub Division

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.4792 of 2025

¶16

of the petitioner's land and mutation of the patta in the petitioner's name separately bearing Re-Survey No.252/6C to an extent of 4 cents and 2 cents respectively, situated at Ayan Samuthirapatti Village within the Natham Sub Registration District and Dindigul Registration District, on the basis of his online petition with registration Number 2024/0105/13/455335 dated 23.12.2024 in the office of the 2^nd respondent.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ramesh

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner challenges the impugned order of online rejection order passed by the second respondent.

¶21

2. Admittedly, the impugned order is not a speaking order.

¶22

However, the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was unable to show four boundaries of his property under any valid convincing documents and only under such

¶23

circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed.

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.4792 of 2025

¶27

3. Per contra, it is the case of the petitioner that the sale deed under

¶28

which the petitioner claimed right is in respect of a schedule, which is bounded on all four sides, clearly mentioning definite boundaries and therefore, without even noticing the documents that have been produced by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed.

¶29

4. Admittedly, it is seen that the impugned order of rejection was in the online mode and it does not disclose of any opportunity given to the petitioner to produce relevant documents. Though the petitioner contends that he has already given his documents to the respondents, in the light of the impugned order that the petitioner has not been able to show his four boundaries, the impugned order is set aside on the limited ground of depiriving the petitioner of a personal hearing to meet the objections of the second respondent regarding the boundaries.

¶30

5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the second respondent, who shall afford an opportunity by way of personal hearing to the petitioner to produce documentary evidence in support of his claim and also satisfy the second

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.4792 of 2025

¶34

respondent with regard to the four definite boundaries as well as physical possession of the subject property being with the petitioner. Thereupon the second respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶36

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Index : Yes / No 21.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No

¶38

vsm

¶39

4/6

¶40

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