SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
Elayarani – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Thanjavur – Respondent
W.P(MD)No. 31924 of 2025|W.M.P.(MD) No.25111 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
For the Respondents:Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate

The court determined the need for proper justification in administrative rejections and emphasized reconsideration by providing opportunities to affected parties.

Headnote:This judgment concerns a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a request for patta transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner submitted key documents but faced a rejection due to alleged missing documents. The Court found this rejection insufficiently reasoned and decided to remand the matter for reconsideration, ensuring notice to all legal heirs. The final order set aside the impugned decision and directed a fresh order within three months.

Table of Content
1. challenge to order rejecting patta transfer (Para 1 , 2)
2. government advocate's submission for reconsideration (Para 3)
3. court's findings on the necessity for a fresh hearing (Para 4)
4. final order for remand and reconsideration (Para 5)

O R D E R

An order dated 21.09.2025 rejecting the petitioner's request for a patta transfer is challenged in this Writ Petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all material documents, such as, the Will dated 10.01.1994, death certificate dated 23.09.2022, registered settlement deed dated 14.08.2025 and patta No. 795 were submitted. Without recording proper reasons, he states that the impugned rejection order was issued.

3. Learned Government Advocate accepts notice for all the respondents. He submits that the matter may be remanded for reconsideration.

4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that it records that link documents and parent documents were not submitted. No further particulars are contained therein. The petitioner traces title to Will dated 10.01.1994. The petitioner has also filed the death certificate indicating that her grandfather, Velayutham, died on 13.02.1994. In these circumstances, the matter requires reconsideration. While undertaking reconsideration, in order to ascertain whether the Will has been challenged, it is necessary to issue notice to all the Class-I legal heirs of the petitioner's deceased grandfather.

5. Subject to the above observations, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the other legal heirs of the petitioner's deceased grandfather, a fresh speaking order shall be issued within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

NCS : Yes/No 10.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To

1. The District Collector, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

2. The Revenue Tahsildar, Boodalur Taluk, Thanjavur District.

3. The Village Administrative Officer, Koothur, Koothur Revenue Village, Boodalur Taluk, Thanjavur District.

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY.,J.

apd ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No. 31924 of 2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top