J.Illiyas Vs the District Collector

PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus calling for the records of the 4^th respondent in File No.2021/ 0153/ 35/ 001735 dated 14.5.2026 and quash

¶16

Page1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 27915 of 2026

¶19

the same and thereby direct the 4^th respondent to transfer the patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of S.No21/3B1B1A1A- 0.04 cents out of 0.01.5 ares (Town Survey No.94) measuring an extent of 1772 sq.ft of Arunthadiyarpuram, 1^st Street, Esa pallavaram, Pallavaram Taluk, Chengalpet District.

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr. N.Suresh For Respondent(s): Ms.Inthu Karunakaran Government Counsel

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.05.2026 passed by the 4^th respondent.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned

¶24

order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and, therefore, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶25

The learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents

¶26

submitted that, although the impugned order bears the date 14.05.2026, it had in fact been passed much earlier.

¶27

__________ Page2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 27915 of 2026

¶30

This Court is unable to accept the said contention. Whatever the actual date on which the order was passed, the same ought to have been correctly reflected in the impugned order. The discrepancy clearly indicates non-application of mind and renders the impugned order a non-speaking order. It is not in dispute that the Sale Deed dated 29.03.2007 was duly executed and registered. Ordinarily, upon registration of the Sale Deed and payment of the requisite fees, the Tahsildar is bound to effect mutation of revenue records, provided the patta stands in the name of the vendor. In the present case, the patta admittedly stands in the name of the vendor. Having called upon the petitioner to produce documents despite the relevant revenue records already being available with the authorities, the refusal to effect patta transfer is wholly unsustainable.

¶31

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.05.2026 is set aside. The 4^th respondent is directed to effect patta transfer in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the vendor's patta and the registered Sale Deed dated 29.03.2007 within a period of five (5) working days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court is of the prima facie view that the impugned order appears to have been passed under extraordinary and unexplained circumstances. Accordingly, the District Collector, Chengalpattu District, is directed to conduct an

¶32

Page3 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

WP No. 27915 of 2026

¶35

appropriate enquiry into the matter. If any misconduct or dereliction of duty is found, the District Collector shall initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the Tahsildar, Pallavaram Taluk, who passed the impugned order, in accordance with law, and file a compliance report before this Court on or before 10.08.2026.

¶36