Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
V.Munitha .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by District Collector, Ranipet District. 2.The Sub Collector (I/C), Arakkonam, Ranipet District. 3.The Tahsildar, Arakkonam Taluk, Arakkonam. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.A4/2055/2019 dated 24.01.2020 and quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent to grant patta in respect of petitioner's property having an extent of 1800 sq.ft bearing Plot No.39, comprised in S.No.524/3B, Vadamambakkam Village, Arakkonam Taluk known as Green Park Avenue after subdividing the same in the name of petitioner in the light of judgment of this Court made in A.S.No.108 of 1991 dated 26.11.2001. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Jeremiah
For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.M.R.GokulKrishnan Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 24.01.2020 and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to grant patta in the name of the petitioner with respect to the subject property. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3.The application submitted by the petitioner seeking for patta has been rejected through the rejection order dated 24.01.2020 on the ground that the subject property in Survey No.524/3B has been classified as lands allotted to depressed class. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land cannot be classified as the lands allotted to depressed class in view of the
judgment passed by the competent civil court and also due to the fact that
patta originally stood in the name of the predecessor in title. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2541 of 2013 dated 21.04.2014.
5.In the considered view of this Court, if the 2nd respondent needed any clarifications, a notice should have been issued to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents before the 2nd respondent. Instead, the 2nd respondent has passed the rejection order, without assigning any reason and by merely stating that the lands in question are allotted to depressed class. Whereas there are materials to show that the lands stood in the name of private individuals.
6.In the light of the above discussion, the impugned rejection order
dated 24.01.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the file of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to submit all relevant documents. Thereafter, final orders shall be passed, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the above terms. No costs. 24.04.2025 (1/5) krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by District Collector, Ranipet District. 2.The Sub Collector (I/C), Arakkonam, Ranipet District. 3.The Tahsildar, Arakkonam Taluk, Arakkonam.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
krk 24.04.2025 (1/5)