← Library
Madras High CourtWP/45093/2025allowed

R.Gopalakannan v. The Reveneu Tahsildar

2025-11-24Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH R.Gopalakannan S/o.Raman ... Petitioner Vs The Revenue Tahsildar, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

... Respondent 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 (i) File No.2025/0105/05/348679 dated 14.07.2025 and (ii) File No.2025/0105/05/365263 dated 25.10.2025 passed by the respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to transfer Patta No.3847 for the lands measuring 52.50 cents comprised in SF Nos.5/1B and 6/1B, Nathathahalli Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District, in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed dated 03.06.2025 (Doc.No.3238/2025-SRO, Dharmapuri West).

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent : Mr.D.Ravichander Special Government Pleader 1/5

*****

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the online rejection order passed by the respondent dated 25.10.2025 and for a consequential direction to the respondent to transfer the patta in the name of the petitioner with respect to the subject property

2. Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent.

3. The petitioner is claiming right and title over the subject property by virtue of a sale deed dated 03.06.2025 registered as document No.3238/2025, which was executed in favour of the petitioner by his mother. The petitioner submitted an application and sought survey of the subject property. The said application has been rejected by the respondent by stating that Supreme Court case is pending. Aggrieved by the same, 2/5

the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. The petitioner has taken a very specific stand that the Supreme Court case, which has been referred to in the online rejection order, has nothing to do with the property in question and this has been explained to the respondent. In spite of the same, without giving any opportunity, the respondent has passed the impugned order.

5. In the considered view of this Court, the online rejection order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. If the respondent wants any clarification in the pending case before the Supreme Court, the respondent ought to have called the petitioner for an enquiry and sought necessary clarification. The petitioner is having some explanation regarding the same. Without hearing that explanation, the online rejection order could not have been passed by the respondent.

6. In view of the above, the online rejection order passed by 3/5

the respondent dated 25.10.2025 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the file of the respondent with a direction to the respondent to call the petitioner for enquriy and thereafter, pass an order on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

This writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.11.2025 Index:yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order gm N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

gm To The Revenue Tahsildar, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

4/5

24.11.2025 5/5