Table of Content
1. petition challenges patta rejection order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. non-speaking order lacks communicated reasons. (Para 3 , 4)
3. quash order, remit for fresh hearing. (Para 5)

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the Impugned order of the third Respondent dated 09.03.2026 vide File No.2026/0105/13/001970 and consequently direct the third Respondent to issue the Patta in the name of the petitioner regarding to Survey No.420/5, 420/7 and 420/8, Silukkuvarpatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

2. It is seen from the impugned order that the petitioner's claim for issuance of patta has been rejected on the ground that:-

“NknyOjJ;

nghUs;: gll; h khww; k; jpzL; ff; y; (13) khtll; k;

epyfN; fhli; l (12)

tll; k; rpYfF; thuglb; (032) fpuhkk>; fpuhk Gy vz ; /clg; pupT vz; 420/5> 420/8> y; gll; h khww; k; NfhupaJ njhlug; hf.

ghHit 1. kDjhuu; jpU/jpUkjp/nryt; p Victoria Jemin Nirmaladevi kD ehs;. 19-01-2026 16:41:11

2. rh.M.F.t.mstu; jpU/jpUkjp/nryt; p Ramanathan.M. rpYf;Fthuglb; (032) mwpf;if ehs ; 09-03-2026 17:26:19 ghui; tapy; fzl; jqf; s; gll; h khWjy; Nfhupa kDtpid 20260105/13/001970 fpuhk eput; hf mYtyu; Gyjj; zpf;iffF; clg; Ljj; p ghui; t 2y; fzl; tprhuiz mwpf;if ngwgg; l;lJ. fpuhk eput; hf mYtyupd; mwpfi; fapy; fPof; zl; fhuzqf; spdhy; jqf; s; kDtpd; Ngupy; gll; h khWjy;

eltbfi; f vLff; ,aytpyi; y vd njuptpjJ; s;shu.;

Survey No/Subdivisio n No.	Reason for Rejection
420/5	kw;wit
420/8	kw;wit

NkNy Fwpgg; pll; fhuzjj; hy; jhqf; s; Nfhupfi; f Vwf; ,aytpyi; y. Nkwg; b Fiwfis eptuj; j; p nraJ; kPs tpzz; gg; pjJ; nfhss; njwptpff; gg; LfpwJ.

tll; hl;rpau;

ngWeu ; jpU/jpUkjp nry;tp Victoria Jemin Nirmaladevi”

3.The impugned order is a non-speaking order. Although elaborate reasons may not have been provided online, at least the reasons ought to have been communicated to the petitioner, either in person or through SMS. However, the respondents have failed to do so. Nevertheless, the respondents have stated in the order that the petitioner may resubmit the application along with the relevant records.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already submitted all the relevant records.

5. Since the impugned order is a non-speaking order, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is hereby quashed, and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to produce all the records before the third respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent shall consider the matter and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing the petitioner with a personal opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document