Shireen Korula Cherian v. Tahsildar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and W.M.P.No.17789 of 2025 Shireen Korula Cherian W/o. Cherian Kopparayil Korula, Flat No. 1e Raag Darbar 45/52 Sterlng Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. TAHSILDAR Mylapore Taluk, Chennai 2.Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Mylapore Taluk, Chennai Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order No.2025/0153/02/014760 dated 21.04.2025 issued by the first respondent in rejecting the application for the transfer of name in Patta (TSLR) for the property comprised in S.Nos.1407/6 1407/8 and 1407/10 in an extent of 4 1/4

grounds situated at Block no. 28 Mylapore Part 1 Town Mylapore taluk, Chennai and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondents herein to issue Patta in the name of the petitioner and her brother and within such time as may be prescribed by this Honourable Court.

For Petitioner :

Ms.V.Janaranjani For Respondents :

Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

The writ petition has been filed challenging the online rejection order passed by the first respondent dated 21.04.2025 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to issue patta in the name of the petitioner and her brother 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 petitioner is placing reliance upon the Will dated 01.09.2006 and has sought for transfer of patta in the name of the petitioner and her brother. The application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the first respondent mainly on the ground that the Will has not been probated and this order has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

4. In the considered view of this Court, the first respondent 2/4

ought to have assessed the fact as to whether the probated Will was required. It is not necessary that all the Wills will have to be probated and therefore, an enquiry should have been conducted in this regard. Without doing so, straight away the first respondent has rejected the application which has been put to challenge in the present writ petition.

5. In the light of the above discussion, the online rejection order passed by the first respondent dated 21.04.2025 is hereby quashed and there shall be a direction to the first respondent to deal with the application submitted by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and orders shall be passed on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

29.04.2025 Index: Yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order mk N.ANAND VENKATESH, J 3/4

mk To

1. TAHSILDAR Mylapore Taluk, Chennai 2.Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Mylapore Taluk, Chennai 29.04.2025 4/4