S.Babu v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN and WMP.Nos. 38136 & 38145 of 2025 S.Babu
...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Hosur Revenue Division, Krishnagiri District-635 109 2.The Tahsildar Denkanikotai Taluk, Krishnagiri District-635 107 3.The Head Surveyor Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District-635 107 ....Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the
2nd respondent in File No.2025/0105/31/675912 dated 10.7.2025 and to quash the same and consequentially direct the 2nd respondents to issue patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of the property situated in Survey Nos.127/1 and 127/2A, covered under patta No.136, and 1449, situated at Echchanahalli village, Denikanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, based on the registered Settlement Deed No.2555 of 2025 dated 6.6.2025. For Petitioner:
Mr. J. Pradeep For Respondents:
Mr. S.Rajesh, GA
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 10.07.2025, whereby the request made by the petitioner for transfer of patta in respect of the land comprised in Survey Nos. 127/1 and 127/2A, situated at Echchanahalli Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, was rejected.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and that there are no encumbrances or disputes concerning the same. It was further contended that the 2nd respondent, without considering these material aspects and without assigning any valid reason, has mechanically rejected the petitioner's request for
transfer of patta. Hence, the impugned order is arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that, if the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent, the nd respondent will consider the petitioner's request afresh and pass appropriate orders on merits within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
3. Heard both sides. Perused the records produced before this Court.
4. Upon a perusal of the impugned order dated 10.07.2025, it is evident that the 2nd respondent has not assigned any reason whatsoever for rejecting the petitioner's request for transfer of patta. The order is thus bereft of reasoning and shows a complete non-application of mind. It is a settled principle of administrative law that every quasi-judicial or administrative order affecting the rights of a person must disclose reasons for the decision taken. The requirement to record reasons is fundamental to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability in the decision-making process. The absence of reasons renders the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable.
5. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the 2 nd respondent is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's request for transfer of patta on its own merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested parties, and to pass a reasoned order within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
22-10-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ak
To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Hosur Revenue Division, Krishnagiri District-635 109 2.The Tahsildar Denkanikotai Taluk, Krishnagiri District-635 107 3.The Head Surveyor Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District-635 107
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ak W.P No. 33983 of 2025 22-10-2025