N.Senthil v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER N.Senthil ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai (West), Madurai District.

4.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

5.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned patta transfer order in T.R.No. 2025/0103/24/400978TR dated 29.06.2025 passed by the fifth respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the fourth and fifth respondents to Page No. 1 of 5

effect patta in the name of the petitioner for the lands in S.No.98/1B, 97/6, 98/4A, 98/2 and 98/5 at T.Andipatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District as stood earlier vide Patta No.707 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.11.2025 within stipulated time framed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dinesh For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.06.2025 bearing reference T.R.No.2025/0103/24/ 400978TR passed by the fifth respondent.

2. With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner, thereby transferring the patta from the name of the petitioner to the name of his father, who was alive on the date of passing of the impugned order. Page No. 2 of 5

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that the impugned order does not indicate that the petitioner was put on notice.

5. Since the petitioner has been adversely affected by the impugned order, which was passed without issuing notice to him, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the fifth respondent for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the fifth respondent, who shall pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

[K.SURENDER, J.] 20.02.2026 JEN Index : Yes / No Page No. 3 of 5

To 1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai (West), Madurai District.

4.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

5.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

Page No. 4 of 5

K.SURENDER , J.

JEN 20.02.2026 Page No. 5 of 5