W.P.No.17447 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.06.2026 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy W.P.No.17447 of 2026 & W.M.P.No.18713 of 2026 N.VISHNU .. Petitioner Vs. 1 The District Collector Vellore 632 009, Vellore District. 2 The Tahsildar Vellore 632 009, Vellore Taluk,Vellore District. ...Respondents Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in Application No.2025/N105/04/ 436677 dated 03.01.2026 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Senthilkumar For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.B.Pachaiyappan Government Counsel Order With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17447 of 2026 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the second respondent dated 03.01.2026 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the second respondent to pass orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application made by the petitioner via. online seeking for transfer of patta in his name has been rejected by the second respondent vide the impugned order without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, hence, challenging such rejection, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The learned Government Counsel who takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that out of 14 cents of the subject property, the petitioner is entitled only to an extent of 1864 sq.ft and thus, since the extent of property mentioned in the settlement deed did not match with the extent of property mentioned in the petitioner’s application, the application came to be rejected. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17447 of 2026 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that based on the settlement deed dated 26.08.2008 executed by the father of the petitioner in his favour in respect of a land measuring 14 cents, the petitioner has sought for transfer of patta in his name and before deciding the merits of the Writ Petition, the second respondent could have called upon the petitioner by putting on notice and after hearing the petitioner, the petitioner’s claim could have decided, however, without doing so, the second respondent rejected the petitioner’s application by taking an unilateral decision, hence, the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 7. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property measuring an extent of 14 cents comprised in S.No.167/8B and S.No.167/8B1 by virtue of a settlement deed dated 26.08.2008 executed in his favour by his father, one S.Nagaran. Based on the said settlement deed, the petitioner has sought for transfer of patta in his name by making an application before the second respondent. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17447 of 2026 7.1 Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if, according to the second respondent, the extent of property mentioned in the application did not match with the extent of property mentioned in the sale deed and any doubt has arisen with regard to the petitioner’s entitlement over the property, the second respondent ought to have called upon the petitioner along with supporting documents and heard the petitioner. It is only thereafter, the second respondent could have proceeded to reject the application. But, the second respondent without adopting such course, straight away rejected the petitioner’s application, which is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the order passed by the second respondent dated 03.01.2026 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration, in which case, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s application afresh and pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17447 of 2026 10. This Writ Petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 02.06.2026 sd Index : yes/no Neutral Citation : yes/no To 1 The District Collector Vellore 632 009, Vellore District. 2 The Tahsildar Vellore 632 009, Vellore Taluk, Vellore District. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17447 of 2026 Krishnan Ramasamy,J., sd W.P.No.17447 of 2026 02.06.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis