Sudha v. The Tahsildar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and W.M.P. No.31067 of 2025 Sudha Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Tahsildar, Nambiyur Erode District.
2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Nambiyur Erode District.
Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings in Koppu No.2025/0105/10/361352 dated 21.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal consequently, direct the respondents to issue separate patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of survey No.770/8A1A1 for an extent of 0.13.57 hectares (33 1⁄2 cents) situated at Koshanam "A" Village, Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.V.Illanchezian For Respondent(s) : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader
ORDER
1/5
By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 whereby petitioner's request for mutation of patta in his name in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.770/8A1A1, measuring an extent of 0.13.57 hectares (33 1⁄2 cents) situated at Koshanam "A" Village, Nambiyur Taluk, Erode, was rejected.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner purchased the subject property from one Palanisamy, son of Karuppa Nadar, registered as Document No.1620/2025 dated 21.03.2025. It is stated that patta in respect of the subject property stands in the name of petitioner's vendor Palanisamy, son of Karuppa Nadar. Petitioner applied for mutation of patta in his name subsequent to the purchase, however, the same was rejected on the premise that there is discrepancy in the extent of land between the sale deed and the field measurement book. It is the case of the petitioner that they may be provided with an opportunity to put forth their explanation. Hence, this writ petition.
4. At the outset, it is submitted by Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special 2/5
Government Pleader for respondents that petitioner may treat the impugned order as notice and submit her objections along with documentary evidence, if any such response is filed, the same would be considered by the respondents and appropriate orders would be passed after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner and other interested parties.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner may treat the impugned order as notice and submit her objections along with documentary evidence within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of web copy without waiting for receipt of certified copy. If any such response is filed by the petitioner, the concerned respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties within a period of 12 weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 05.08.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No mka To:
1.The Tahsildar, 3/5
Nambiyur Erode District.
2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Nambiyur Erode District.
4/5
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
mka 05.08.2025 (1⁄2) 5/5