WP No. 31214 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 31214 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 34318 OF 2026 Lalitha D/o.late.Nagarajan, No.46-B, 1st Main Road, Sadasivam Nagar, Madipakkam, Chennai- 600 091. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Tahsildar Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of rejection dated 17.07.2026 passed by the Respondent in Patta Application No. 2026/ 0103/ 02/ 012813 dated 02.07.2026, quash the same, and Consequently direct the Respondent to transfer the patta in the name of the Petitioner in respect of the subject property, within such time as may be fixed by this court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Selvendran, for Mr.R.Nageswara Rao For Respondent(s): Mr.Vineeth P.R., Government Advocate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 31214 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 Order This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the rejection order passed by the respondent, whereby the petitioner's application for transfer of patta was rejected. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s brother had purchased the property bearing Plot No. 46-B, measuring an extent of 2,430 sq.ft., situated in Sadashiva Nagar Extension, “Rajagopalapuram” Layout, comprised in S.F. No. 69 of Madipakkam Village. The petitioner and his brother were both unmarried. During his lifetime, the petitioner’s brother executed a Will dated 07.07.2022, bequeathing the aforesaid property exclusively in favour of the petitioner. Upon his demise, the petitioner became the absolute and rightful owner of the property. Consequently, the petitioner made an online application for patta transfer. However, the respondent, vide the impugned order dated 17.07.2026, rejected the petitioner’s application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner limited his prayer to the extent that the respondent had passed a non-speaking order without assigning any reasons, and therefore, prayed that the matter may be remanded to the authority for fresh consideration. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 31214 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent fairly submitted that the respondent had indeed passed a non-speaking order, and if the matter is remanded, the same will be considered afresh and an appropriate speaking order will be passed. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. A mere perusal of the impugned order reveals that the respondent has passed a non-speaking order without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and hence, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.07.2026 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as any other parties concerned, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 31214 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 34318 of 2026 is closed. 06-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SK To The Tahsildar Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 31214 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. sk WP No. 31214 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 34318 OF 2026 06-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis