Madras High CourtWP/6807/2026disposed of

Lakshmikantham v. The Tahsildar,

2026-02-24Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.02.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.Nos.7385 & 7386 of 2026 Lakshmikantham ... Petitioner Vs.

The Tahsildar, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.

... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings passed by the respondent in File No.2025/N103/17/018422 dated 29.10.2025 and File No.2025/N103/17/018420 dated 29.10.2025 and File No.2025/N103/17/018424 dated 29.10.2025, quash the same as illegal and arbtirary, and consequently direct the respondent to issue patta in petitioner favour in respect of the properties comprised survey Nos.344/5A1A, 344/5B3A, 443/5C1A, 455/5A6 and 455/6F situated at Jayamkondacholapuram Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District. For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Selvam For Respondent : Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate ***** Page No.1 of 4

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 29.10.2025, rejecting the petitioner's application seeking for issuance of patta in her name for the properties morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition.

2. Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justie and on the ground that the impugned order has been passed through a non-speaking order. As seen from the impugned order, dated 29.10.2025, no reason whatsoever has been given by the respondent for rejecting the petitioner's application seeking for issuance of patta in her name. The reason for rejection given in the impugned order is that the Village Administrative Officer has recommended for rejection of the petitioner's application. Excepting for stating the same, the respondent has not given due consideration to the supporting documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was also not afforded any personal hearing by the respondent in the impugned proceedings.

Page No.2 of 4

4. Being an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and an order, which is a non-speaking order, necessarily, the impugned order has to be qaushed and the matter has to be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order, dated 29.10.2025 passed by the respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to submit a written explanation to the respondent, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, stating as to how the petitioner is entitled for issuance of patta in her favour for the properties morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition.

The respondent shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and also consider the supporting documents filed by the petitioner and after hearing the objections, if any, from the neighbouring land owners and any other party, whom the respondent deems it fit to enquire and thereafter, the respondent shall pass final order in respect of the petitioner's application seeking for issuance of patta in her name for the subject properties, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of the written explanation from the petitioner. Page No.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 24.02.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp To The Tahsildar, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.

Page No.4 of 4