Madras High Court
Raviraj vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 9 August, 2021
W.P.No(MD).13691 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.(MD).No.13691 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD).No.10636 of 2021
Raviraj ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o.Revenue Divisional Office,
Ramanathapuram Revenue Division,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Tahsildhar,
Kadaladi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of
the second respondent pertaining to rejection of online application dated
o3.07.2021 for the issuance of second Class Legal heirship Certificate of
Petitioner's blood Elder Sister Kamalam and quash the same as illegal as
devoid of merits and directing the respondents to consider petitioner's
application in person dated 05.07.2021 for issuance of second Class Legal
heirship Certificate of petitioner's blood Elder Sister Kamalam in
accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.Raja Karthikeyan
For Respondents :Mr.R.Baskaran
counsel for state
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No(MD).13691 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner challenges an order dated 03.07.2021 of the second
respondent whereby the petitioner's application for a Legal Heirship
Certificate as regards his elder sister, Kamalam, was rejected. The petitioner
states that his elder sister, Kamalam and himself were the only children of
his late father Gnanamuthu. His sister, Kamalam, married one
Mr.Ramakrishnan. The said Mr.Ramakrishnan died on 03.08.1994. The
couple did not have any children. Consequently, his sister does not have any
Class I legal heirs in terms of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. As a result,
the petitioner states that he qualifies as the only Class II legal heir.
2. Mr.R.Baskaran, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on
behalf of both the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and relies upon the
judgments of this Court in T.S.Renuka Devi Vs.The Thasildar, Mambalam
Guindy Taluk, in W.P.(MD).No.37214 of 2015 and R.Lokesh Kannan Vs.
The District Collector, Madurai District, in W.P.(MD).No.5586 of 2017. It
is stated that in both these judgments, this Court held that an application for
issuance of a legal heirship certificate cannot be rejected merely because it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No(MD).13691 of 2021
is made by a Class II legal heir. In the R.Lokesh Kannan judgment, this
Court proceeded to record that, if there are rival claims for legal heirship
and such claims cannot be determined by the Thasildar, the same may be
relegated to the appropriate civil Court. In all other cases, it was held that
the Thasildar is bound to consider the claim for a legal heirship certificate
and grant such certificate after conducting an appropriate inquiry.
4. In the case on hand, a perusal of the impugned order indicates that
the application was rejected by citing the following reason: “relationship
was wrong with the applicant and died person as per VAO and RI enquiry.
So rejected”.
5. From the aforesaid reason for rejection, it is unclear as to whether
the Thasildar concluded that the petitioner was not really the younger
brother of Kamalam or whether the Thasildar concluded that the petitioner
was not the husband of Kamalam. Indeed, the certificate issued by the
Village Administrative Officer on 30.06.2021 indicates that, other than
Mr.Ramakrishnan, Kamalam had no other husband. All decisions that affect
the civil rights of parties, whether judicial, quasi judicial or administrative,
are required to indicate reasons which form the links between the facts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No(MD).13691 of 2021
documents on record and the conclusions in respect thereof. The impugned
order is so poorly articulated that it lends itself to more than one
interpretation. Consequently, the impugned order is unsustainable. As a
result, such order is quashed.
6. In fine, W.P.(MD).No.13691 of 2021 is allowed. As a corollary, the
matter is remitted to the Thasildar for de novo consideration of the
petitioner's application for a legal heirship certificate in respect of his elder
sister Kamalam. Such application shall be decided after conducting an
inquiry and after taking into account the judgments referred to above and by
providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any
others who would be affected thereby. Such reasoned order shall be passed
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
W.M.P(MD).No.10636 of 2021 is closed.
09.08.2021
Index: yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No(MD).13691 of 2021
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
sbn
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o.Revenue Divisional Office,
Ramanathapuram Revenue Division,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Tahsildhar,
Kadaladi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram.
W.P.(MD).No.13691 of 2021
09.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
