Arockiasamy A v. The Tahsildar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P.(MD)No.19081 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.14618 of 2025 A.Arockiasamy ... Petitioner Vs The Tahsildar, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

... Respondent 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 the impugned order issued by the respondent vide his proceedings in File No.2024/0103/13/325905 dated 03.08.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to rectify the name in the patta bearing Patta No.22 in respect of the petitioner's property comprised in Survey No.281/5A at Kombaipatti Village, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance For Respondent : Mrs.K.Malathi, Addl. Govt. Pleader 1/6

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 03.08.2024.

2. Heard the arguments of Mr.J.Lawrance, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Malathi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

3. According to the petitioner, the subject property is his ancestral property and originally it stood in the name of his grandfather viz., Nallu Nattanmai. After the death of petitioner's grandfather, patta was issued in the name of petitioner's father Anthony. After the death of petitioner's father, patta was issued in the name of petitioner and he has been enjoying the same. During digitalization of revenue records, the respondent entered the name of patta holder as Anthony, S/o.Arockiyasamy instead of Arockiasamy, S/o.Anthony. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application through online seeking rectification of error in the patta. The same was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit any document to substantiate his right over the property. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has 2/6

come before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner impugns the order passed by the respondent on the ground that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner to substantiate his claim and therefore, the same is vitiated by violation of natural justice principles.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and the impugned order has been passed, based on the report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer, Kombaipatti.

6. The request of the petitioner for rectification of the patta was rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce any document to substantiate his claim. When no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to produce the document either by way of personal hearing or otherwise, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sand. A perusal of the impugned order would suggest that the application of the petitioner was received by the respondent's office on 03.08.2024 and the Village Administrative Officer, Kombaipatti submitted a report dated 3/6

14.08.2024. Based on the report of the Village Administrative Officer, Kombaipatti, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the request of the petitioner without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claim by furnishing sufficient materials. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of respondent with a direction to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass final orders, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

21.07.2025 vsm Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No 4/6

To The Tahsildar, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

5/6

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

vsm W.P (MD) No.19081 of 2025 21.07.2025 6/6