G.Kuttidurai v. The Tahsildar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P(MD)No.17557 of 2025 G.Kuttidurai ... Petitioner .Vs.

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District.

... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.A33071667, dated 16.4.2025 passed by the respondent as illegal and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue separate patta in the name of Petitioner pertaining to the property in S.No.515/9, bearing an extent of 15 cents situated at Achanpudur Village, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District within the time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah For Respondent : Mrs.K.Malathi Addl.Govt. Pleader

O R D E R

1/5

The Petitioner herein seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order in Na.Ka.A33071667, dated 16.4.2025 passed by the respondent and consequently direct the respondent to issue separate patta in the name of Petitioner in respect of the property in S.No.515/9, with an extent of 15 cents situated at Achanpudur Village, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3.The impugned order has been questioned by the Petitioner mainly on the ground that the Petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing and hence, the principles of natural justice are violated.

4.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that before passing the impugned order, the Petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing.

2/5

5.The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the suit in O.S.No.34 of 2024 referred to in the impugned order is not relating to the subject property and the same is relating to the adjacent property to the subject property. The learned counsel would further submit that since no opportunity was given to the Petitioner, the Petitioner was not able to demonstrate the said fact before the respondent.

6.Since the Petitioner was not afforded with reasonable opportunity before passing the impugned order rejecting the request of the Petitioner, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the respondent for considering the matter afresh and passing appropriate orders after affording reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner and other interested parties, if any, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of a copy of this order.

7.With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. No costs.

21.07.2025 3/5

NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn To The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District.

S.SOUNTHAR.,J.

vsn 4/5

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.17557 of 2025 21.07.2025 5/5