← Library
Madras High CourtWP/2401/2026disposed of

D.Prakash Rao v. The Tahsildar

2026-01-29Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE D.Prakash Rao ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Tahsildar Tirupattur Taluk, Tirupattur District.

..Respondent(s) Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for entire records in pursuant to the rejection order dated 17.10.2025 issued by the respondent rejecting the petitioner's patta transfer application and quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondent to survey the petitioner's land comprised in survey No.107/1, Andiappanur Village, Tirupattur District, having an extent of 4 cents as per sale deed dated 22.11.2001 and issue patta in favour of the petitioner. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.B.Karthik For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Arumugam Govt Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the respondent rejecting the petitioner's application for transfer of patta in his name for the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition.

2. Mr.S.Arumugam, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the subject property having purchased the same from one Chinnaraji. However, as seen from the impugned order, the respondent has rejected the petitioner's patta transfer application only on the ground that that the petitioner's vendor Chinnaraji has objected to transfer of patta in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a copy of the sale deed dated 20.11.2001 standing in his name for the subject property along with this writ petition.

4. Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted by the respondent before passing the impugned order. Unless and until a proper enquiry is conducted by the respondent, the truth as to whether who is the owner of the subject property and who is currently in possession of the same cannot be ascertained. Since the

impugned order has been passed without conducting an enquiry by hearing the contention of the petitioner as well as the objections raised by one Chinnaraji, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order has to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's application seeking for transfer of patta in his name. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:- (a) The impugned order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the respondent is hereby quashed by this Court, and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration of the petitioner's application seeking for transfer of patta in his name for the subject property.

(b) The respondent shall conduct a proper enquiry by hearing the petitioner as well as the petitioner's vendor Chinnaraj, and after giving an opportunity to them to produce supporting documents, and pass a speaking order, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.

29-01-2026 RKM

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

RKM To The Tahsildar Tirupattur Taluk & District.

29-01-2026