Madras High CourtWP/1234/2020disposed of

Mrs.T.Neelavathi, v. The Tahsildar,

2020-01-23Honourable Mr Justice T. S. Sivagnanam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.01.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.1234 of 2020 Mrs.T.Neelavathi .. Petitioner -vsThe Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Mathuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

.. Respondent Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to issue the order of rejection letter vide letter no.2019/0105/03/217653 passed by the Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Mathuranthagam Taluk dated 26.05.2019. For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Suryasenthil For Respondent :

Mr.Annai Ezhil, Government Advocate ******

ORDER

Heard Mr.N.Suryasenthil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Annai Ezhil, learned Government Advocate accepting notice on behalf of the respondent.

2.With consent on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

3.The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of rejection passed by the respondent rejecting the grant of patta. 4.According to the petitioner, the impugned order of rejection is a message conveyed to the petitioner through Short Message Service (SMS) stating that the petitioner's application for grant of patta is not feasible of consideration. The petitioner states that if reasons are assigned by the respondent for rejection, he would have worked out his remedy in accordance 1/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

with law. The SMS sent to the petitioner states that if he wants the reasons to know, he can approach the e-Seva centre.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached the centre, but there is nothing available in the online platform.

6.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has got instructions from the respondent dated 23.01.2020 in which, it has been stated that there is a difference in the extent of the property and the property also is yet to be partitioned. Therefore, the respondent has declined to consider the application for grant of patta. 7.Let the respondent communicate the reasons for rejection of the petitioner's application through post within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, it is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law.

8.With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

-s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar abr To The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Mathuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

+1 cc to M/s.C.D.Johnson Advocate sr5169 +1 cc to the Government Pleader sr5302 W.P.No.1234 of 2020 cp(co) aa25/02/2020 2/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/