Mukila v. The Tahsildar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER and W.M.P.(MD)No.28606 of 2025 Mukila ... Petitioner -vs1.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Thisaiyanvilai Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

2.Saritha Beevi ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in File No.2025/0103/29/455194, Thisayanvilai (16) Tahsildar Office, dated 30.05.2025, quash the same as illegal and consequently, directing the first respondent to issue Patta in the petitioner's favour and Sumathi, W/o.Linga Chithirai, within time frame as fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed For R1 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in File No.2025/0103/29/455194, Thisayanvilai (16) Tahsildar Office, dated 30.05.2025, and consequently, direct the first respondent to issue Patta in favour of the petitioner and Sumathi, W/o.Linga Chithirai, within time frame as fixed by this Court.

2. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the second respondent, notice to the second respondent is hereby dispensed with.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application seeking issuance of patta was rejected on the ground that "a court case is pending in respect of the field / sub-division for which patta change is requested." No further details have been furnished regarding the alleged court proceedings pending in respect of the subject property.

5. Upon a query from this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is unaware of any such court proceedings and is unable to ascertain the nature of the case, if any, as the petitioner is not a party to any civil proceedings in respect of the subject property. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as the rejection order is not a speaking order.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the matter is remanded back to the first respondent / Tahsildar for fresh adjudication. The first respondent shall furnish specific details while disposing of the petitioner's application. The first respondent is directed to consider the application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the second respondent, and the interested persons, if any, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight 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, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

NCC : Yes / No (K.SURENDER, J.) Index : Yes / No 17.12.2025

To:- The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Thisaiyanvilai Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

K.SURENDER , J.

smn2 17.12.2025