Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
R.Vijayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
1. Tashildar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District. 2. Sub Inspector / Kuru Vatta Surveyar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District. 3. Village Administrative Officer, Kothapulli Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District. – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.32071 of 2025 | W.M.P(MD)No.25238 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Kameswaran
For the Respondents:Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate

A refusal of administrative action without adequate reasoning is unsustainable and requires remand for review.

Headnote:Article 226 of the Constitution of India permits petitions for writs, and the petitioner contended that the refusal to issue a subdivision order was unreasoned. The court found the impugned order lacked sufficient reasoning and thus set it aside, remanding the matter for reconsideration and issuance of a speaking order. The court emphasized the necessity of a reasoned order by the Tahsildar within three months.

Table of Content
1. the order lacked reasoning. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the government advocate suggested remand. (Para 3)
3. the court set aside the order for lacking details and ordered reconsideration. (Para 4)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.11.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(MD)No.32071 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.25238 of 2025 R.Vijayalakshmi ...Petitioner Vs

1. Tashildar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

2. Sub Inspector / Kuru Vatta Surveyar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

3. Village Administrative Officer, Kothapulli Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Refusal of Sub-division order in No. 2024/0105/13/438419 passed by the 1^st respondent dated 06.11.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to make sub-

division in the name of the petitioner in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kameswaran For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate

ORDER

By relying on sale deed dated 22.05.1984 in favour of the petitioner's father and the subsequent settlement deed dated 04.09.2024 in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner had applied for subdivision in respect of the property in R.S.No.574/2A1A. The said application was rejected by the order impugned herein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is unreasoned.

3. Learned Government Advocate accepts notice for all the respondents.

He submits that the matter may be remanded for reconsideration and issuance of speaking order.

4. On examining the impugned order, it is noticeable that it merely states that “the application 2024/0105/13/438419 is rejected by Tahsildar on 06-11- 2024”. No reasons or particulars are provided therein. Consequently, the said order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Therefore, the matter is remanded for reconsideration by the Tahsildar. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the other pattadhars, a speaking order shall be issued within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

12.11.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR To

1. The Tashildar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

2. The Sub Inspector / Kuru Vatta Surveyar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

3. The Village Administrative Officer, Kothapulli Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY , J.

RJR W.P.(MD)No.32071 of 2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document