LOGESHWARAN A v. The Tahsildar,
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Judgment date:
Case summary
Madras High Court judgment dated 2026-04-28. LOGESHWARAN A v. The Tahsildar,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
W. P. No. 16043 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28. 04. 2026 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W. P. No. 16043 of 2026 and W. M. P. No. 17290 of 2026 Logeshwaran A ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Tahsildar, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. 2. The Head Surveyor, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. 3. Ammasai ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the st records of the file of the 1 respondent in proceedings Application No. 2025/0105/10412298 dated 04. 02. 2026 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents to effect sub-division and transfer the patta in survey number 245/2A, measuring an extent of 21 cents out of 2. 37. 50 Acre in Patta No. 2237 situated at Singampettai Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District based on the Settlement Deed No. 5141/2025. Page No. 1 of 6 https://www. mhc.
tn. gov. in/judis W. P. No. 16043 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr. A. Arun Kumar For Respondents : Mr. C. Jayaprakash Government Advocate [R1 & R2] Notice dispensed with [R3] ***** ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order, st dated 04. 02. 2026 passed by the 1 respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking transfer of patta in the name of the petitioner on the ground that in the title deed standing in the name of the petitioner, the four boundaries of the property does not match with the actual boundaries. 2. Mr. C. Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. Since no adverse order is rd rd passed against the 3 respondent in this writ petition, notice to the 3 respondent is dispensed with by this Court. 3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Page No. 2 of 6 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis W. P. No. 16043 of 2026 st 4.
Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted by the 1 respondent before rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking transfer of patta in his name for the subject property. The contentions of the petitioner as raised st in this writ petition have also not been considered by the 1 respondent in the impugned order, dated 04. 02. 2026. Being a non-speaking order with regard to the contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition and an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order, dated st 04. 02. 2026 passed by the 1 respondent has to be quashed by this Court st and the matter has to be remanded back to the 1 respondent for fresh consideration, on merits and in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 04. 02.
2026 passed by st the 1 respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to st the 1 respondent for fresh consideration, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner is directed to submit a written explanation along with supporting documents st to the 1 respondent stating as to how the petitioner is entitled for transfer of patta in his name for the property morefully disclosed in the prayer to Page No. 3 of 6 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis W. P. No. 16043 of 2026 this writ petition, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
On receipt of the said written explanation st from the petitioner within the stipulated time, the 1 respondent shall take a final decision as to whether the patta can be transferred in the name of the petitioner or not, after giving due consideration to the supporting documents filed by the petitioner as well as the written explanation submitted by him, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. In case, st the 1 respondent decides to reject the petitioner’s application seeking st transfer of patta, the 1 respondent shall pass a speaking order giving due consideration to the written explanation submitted by the petitioner as well as the supporting documents produced by him. 6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28. 04. 2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No sp Page No. 4 of 6 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis W. P. No.
16043 of 2026 To 1. The Tahsildar, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. 2. The Head Surveyor, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. Page No. 5 of 6 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis W. P. No. 16043 of 2026 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. sp W. P. No. 16043 of 2026 28. 04. 2026 Page No. 6 of 6 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis
Source: Madras High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.