Alamelu Sriram v. The District Collector
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 20.1.2025 Coram :
The Honourable Ms.Justice P.T.ASHA Writ Petition No.903 of 2025 & WMP.No.1083 of 2025 Mrs.Alamelu Sriram
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The District Collector, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
3.The Tahsildar, Maduranthagam Taluk, Madhuranthagam, Chengalpattu District.
4.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Madhuranthagam, Chengalpattu District.
...Respondents
PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order vide file No.2024/0103/35/ 392967 dated 14.12.2024 passed by the fourth respondent, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd and the 4th respondents to transfer the patta in the names of the legal heirs of the deceased Mr.M.Sriram within the time frame to be fixed by this Court. 1/6
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Murugan For Respondents :
Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, AGP
ORDER
Aggrieved by a non speaking one line rejection of the petitioner's request for transferring patta in respect of the property measuring 0.13 3/4 cents comprised in punja survey No.44A/25, Orathur Village & Panchayat Union, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Chengalpattu District, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is as follows : (i) The petitioner's husband purchased the subject property vide sale deed dated 20.4.1995 registered as doc.No.1490 of 1995 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Achirupakkam from one Mr.S.Swaminathan for a valid sale consideration. Ever since the date of purchase, the petitioner's husband had enjoyed the subject property till his death on 12.8.2009. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner, her son one Mr.Raj Sriram and the widow of her predeceased son and her granddaughter are his only surviving legal heirs. Out of the subject 2/6
property, the petitioner and her son - the said Mr.Raj Sriram are entitled to 1/3rd share each and the other legal heirs are entitled to the balance 1/3rd share. Earlier also, the petitioner's online applications were rejected thrice by the fourth respondent. Once again, by the impugned order, the online application of the petitioner dated 10.9.2024 for transfer of patta came to be rejected by the fourth respondent. Hence the writ petition.
4. The reason for rejection has been stated as follows : Survey No.
/SubDivision No.
Reason for rejection 44A/25A fpuag;gj;jpuj;jpy; cs;s gug;gpw;Fk; Gyj;jpy; cs;s gug;gpw;Fk; tpj;jpahrk; cs;sjhy;/ehd;F vy;iy mj;J xj;Jtuhjjhy;
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
6. Since the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request for the grant of patta is a one line non speaking order and does not partake the character of a speaking order, the same deserves to be set 3/6
aside. Unless the order is a speaking one, the aggrieved person will not be in a position to comprehend the reasons as to why the impugned order has been passed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. [reported in 2010 (9) SCC 496] observed that an order passed by a Quasi Judicial Authority or even an Administrative Authority affecting the rights of the parties must speak and that it must not be like the 'inscrutable face of a Sphinx'. The learned Judges have proceeded to summarize the reasons as to why recording of reasons forms the fulcrum of the orders passed by the courts as well as the administrative decisions. The learned Judges have further held that reasoned decisions based on relevant facts are virtually the life blood of judicial decision making. In the light of the above discussions, the instant order has to necessarily fail.
7. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the fourth respondent, who shall consider the online application of the petitioner dated 10.9.2024 afresh and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.
4/6
20.1.2025 5/6
P.T.ASHA,J RS To 1.The District Collector, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
3.The Tahsildar, Maduranthagam Taluk, Madhuranthagam, Chengalpattu District.
4.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Madhuranthagam, Chengalpattu District.
W.P.No.903 of 2025 & WMP.No.1083 of 2025 20.1.2025 6/6