← Library
Madras High CourtWP/11283/2024allowed

V.Sundar v. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar

2024-04-24Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :24.04.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR V.Sundar ... Petitioner Vs.

The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai.

... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in relation to the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the respondent in File No.2024/0105/02/301117 pertaining to the petitioner's land situated in the Registration District of South Chennai and Registration Sub District of Velacherry bearing Plot No.1114 (Western Part), Ram Nagar, Madipakkam-1 Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District comprised in S.No.120/2 measuring to an extent of 2400 Sq.ft and to quash the same with consequential direction, directing the respondent to issue patta in the name of the petitioner pertaining to his above land.

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Revathy For Respondent : Mr.P.Sathish, AGP Page No.1 of 6

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in relation to the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the respondent in File No.2024/0105/02/301117 pertaining to the petitioner's land situated in the Registration District of South Chennai and Registration Sub District of Velacherry bearing Plot No.1114 (Western Part), Ram Nagar, Madipakkam-1 Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District comprised in S.No.120/2 measuring to an extent of 2400 Sq.ft and to quash the same with consequential direction, directing the respondent to issue patta in the name of the petitioner pertaining to his above land.

2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

3. Challenge has been made mainly on the ground that the rejection order has been passed without any speaking order and without any details have been given in the order, despite the fact that the Page No.2 of 6

petitioner has produced so many documents.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent submitted that the order has been passed, since no document has been filed by the petitioner.

5. The order passed by the respondent indicated that it is an one line order. The rejection has been made on the ground that no document has been produced by the petitioner. Whereas, the affidavit of this petition clearly indicated that various number of sale deeds have been involved and the same has been produced before the respondent. Without a speaking order, just like that an order cannot be passed. Therefore, the order impugned in this Writ Petition is liable to be quashed.

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the respondent in File No.2024/0105/02/301117 is quashed. The respondent is directed to pass a fresh order in this regard. The petitioner is also directed to produce any Page No.3 of 6

necessary documents before the respondent. On such production, the respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders on its own merits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Index : Yes /No 24.04.2024 Speaking / Non-speaking gsk Page No.4 of 6

To The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai.

Page No.5 of 6

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

gsk 24.04.2024 Page No.6 of 6