P.Ruthran v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH P.Ruthran .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Ranipet District.

2.TheTahsildar, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

.. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.B2/1398/2022 dated 28.11.2022 and quash the same and to direct the 2nd respondent to effect subdivision and issue patta in respect of petitioner's property bearing Plot No.77 comprised in S.No.524/3C, Green Park Avenue, Vadamambakkam Village, Arakkonam Taluk in the petitioner's name in the light of judgment of this Court made in A.S.No.108 of 1991 dated 26.11.2001 and W.P.No.2541 of 2013 dated 21.04.2014.

1/5

For Petitioner :

Mr.G.Jeremiah For Respondents :

Mr.M.R.GokulKrishnan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 28.11.2022 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to grant patta in the name of the petitioner with respect to the subject property. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3.The application submitted by the petitioner seeking for patta has been rejected through the rejection order dated 28.11.2022 on the ground that the subject property in Survey No.524/3C has been classified as lands allotted to depressed class.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land cannot be classified as the lands allotted to depressed class in view of the judgment passed by the competent civil court and also due to the fact that 2/5

patta originally stood in the name of the predecessor in title. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2541 of 2013 dated 21.04.2014.

5.In the considered view of this Court, if the 2nd respondent needed any clarifications, a notice should have been issued to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents before the 2nd respondent. Instead, the 2nd respondent has passed the rejection order, without assigning any reason and by merely stating that the lands in question are allotted to depressed class. Whereas there are materials to show that the lands stood in the name of private individuals. 6.In the light of the above discussion, the impugned rejection order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the file of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to submit all relevant documents. Thereafter, final orders shall be passed, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3/5

7.In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the above terms. No costs.

24.04.2025 (4/5) krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No : Yes / No To 1.The District Collector, Ranipet District.

2.TheTahsildar, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

4/5

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

krk 24.04.2025 (4/5) 5/5