Madras High Court
Vasantha Raman vs The Revenue Inspector - (Ii) (T. ... on 21 September, 2021
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
and
W.M.P. Nos. 21322 & 21325 of 2021
1. Vasantha Raman
2. Jagannathan Vanaharam
3. Saroja Jegganathan .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The Revenue Inspector - (II) (T. Nagar)
Guindy Taluk, Chennai
Tamil Nadu 600 032
2. The Tahsildar
Guindy Taluk, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu 600 032 .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the
respondents in the impugned order under dated nil under Application No. TN-
7202106253412 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue legal heirship certificate in
favour of the petitioners as the legal heirs of Mr. T.R. Seshadri.
For Petitioners : Mr. Ashwin Shanbhag
For Respondents : Mr. G. Krishnaraja
Government Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/11
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
ORDER
Mr. G. Krishnaraja, learned Government Counsel takes notice for the
respondents. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for
final disposal at the time of admission itself.
2. The petitioners have called in question the order dated Nil passed
by the second respondent rejecting the application submitted by them to issue
legal heir certificate in their favour. The order of rejection was passed by the
second respondent on the ground that the petitioners are Class II legal heirs of
the deceased and not Class I legal heir.
3. According to the petitioners, they along with their brother
T.R. Seshadri are the four children born to their parents. It is stated that the
petitioners' parents died long back and their brother T.R. Seshadri died on
31.07.2017 as bachelor, leaving them as Class II surviving legal heirs of the
deceased, to inherit his movable and immovable properties. Therefore, on
25.06.2021, they submitted an application through e-sevai portal to the second
respondent along with requisite documents for issuance of legal heirship
certificate and the same was refused by the impugned order, stating that based
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
on the Revenue Inspector's report, the petition seeking second class legal heir,
is rejected.
4. Aggrieved by the order of rejection, the petitioners have come up
with this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in similar
circumstances in WP (MD) No. 15901 of 2018 [N.R.Raja and others v. the
Tahsildar, Madurai South] by order dated 03.08.2018, this Court directed
the respondent therein to grant legal heir certificate to class II legal heirs also.
The relevant passage of the said order is usefully extracted below:
"3.It is submitted that in view of the Letter (Rt) No.1534,
dated 28.11.1991, the authorities had been refusing to issue Legal
heirs Certificate for Class-II legal heirs and advising them to
approach the Civil Court. The impugned order is one such order
relying upon Letter (Rt) No.1534, dated 28.11.1991.
4. Subsequently, this Court, in various orders passed in writ
petitions, have been deprecating the practice of the Tahsildars in
refusing to issue the certificate for class-II legal heirs. The orders
passed in some writ petitions are extracted hereunder:-
"(i). In M.Arumugam & Others vs. The Tahsildar,
Madurai South, Madurai and another reported in CDJ 2013
MHC 6017, it has been held as follows:-
“9. The petitioners are claiming themselves to be class II
heirs. The Tahsildar pleads his inability to consider the case,
as according to him, it would be very difficult to collect the
details of the class II heirs. I am not inclined to accept the said
submission.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
10.The Revenue Department is having lower level
officers, who are familiar with the people living in the
concerned Village. There are revenue officers under the
Tahsildar. There are also village officers functioning in the
villages and they would be in a position to know the members
of the family. The village Administrative Officer is expected
to know each and every family of the village. He cannot plead
ignorance about the relationship. The village Administrative
Officer is the Revenue Co- ordinating Officer of the Revenue
Department. The Village Administrative Officer must keep a
close watch on the village and he should update his
information. The problem of issuing a legal heir certificate to
class II heirs could be resolves, in case a workable method is
adopted by the revenue authorities. Since enquiry has to be
made, the Tahsildar can direct the parties to produce birth
certificates indicating the relationship. The Tahsildar can also
conduct an enquiry in the village level through the Village
Administrative Officer. In case, at a later point of time, it is
turned out to be a false claim, it is open to the Tahsildar to
can the certificate and even criminal action can be taken. The
difficulty to identify the members of the class II heirs cannot
be a reason to reject the request for issuance of legal heir
certificates. Therefore I am of the view that the first
respondent was not justified in passing the impugned order.
Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed."
(ii). In W.P.(MD)No.37214 of 2015 (T.S.Renuka Devi,
rep by her guardian and next friend K.Swaminathan vs. The
Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai-78), it has
been observed as under:-
“5.Admittedly, Class I heirs of the said G.Parvathi
predeceased her. It is not in dispute that the father of the
petitioner is her only surviving legal heir. Therefore, as per
the Schedule appended to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
the petitioner being Class II legal heir, is entitled to succeed
the property left out by the said Parvathi, if no other direct
legal heir is available. In the enquiry, the respondent has also
admitted the same, but he refused to issue a certificate to the
petitioner. In my considered view, the order so passed by the
respondent is not sustainable and hence, the same is liable to
be set aside.
6.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order
dated 05.12.2013 passed by the respondent is set aside. The
petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh application along
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such
submission, the respondent is directed to conduct enquiry by
affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner
in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks
thereafter. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petition is closed."
(iii). In W.P.(MD)No.5586 of 2017 (R.Lokesh Kannan
Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and anothers), it
has been held as follows:-
“5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his brother
died as a bachelor and except the petitioner, there are no legal
heirs, since his parents have already passed away. In the
judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
this Court has held that if Clause-I heirs are not live, Clause-II
heirs are entitled to get the legal heirship certificate from the
Competent Authority. Hence the application of the petitioner
cannot be rejected merely on the ground that there is no direct
legal heir of the deceased.
6.In view of the above facts, this writ petition is disposed
of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the
second respondent enclosing this order copy and the orders
passed in the writ petition referred above, within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
On such receipt, the second respondent shall consider the
petitioner's application and pass orders on merits and in
accordance with law, in the light of the orders passed by this
Court as stated supra within a period of six weeks thereafter.
5. Sections 8 and 9 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925, stipulate the mode of succession in expressive terms.
As such, the respondents will not be justified in refusing the
issuance of Legal heirship Certificate in favour of Class-II
legal heirs, in the absence of Class-I legal heirs. When the law
stipulates the mode of succession, the second respondent is
duty bound to consider the same and conduct proper enquiry,
in line with the order of the descendants, specified under the
Succession Act or any other personal law for that matter.
6. When the law specifies the mode of
succession, there is no impediment on the part of the
Tahsildar to issue Legal heirship certificate as prescribed in
the mode of succession. Nevertheless, in cases, where there
are serious rival claims for the heirships, which cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ considered, on the basis of the statement of the claimants and
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
which necessarily requires to be established through proper
oral and documentary evidences, it would be appropriate, to
refer such parties to the Civil Court of law. Such an exercise
however should be made only when the authority is satisfied
that there is a rival claim for heirships or the relationship of
the heirs with the deceased is disputed. In all other cases, the
authorities are bound to issue Legal heirship Certificate for
the Class-II legal heirs also. It is needless to point out that the
certificates thus issued should be preceded by a proper
enquiry by the Revenue Authorities.
7. In the instant case, the respondents are not
justified in denying the legal heirship certificate of late
Periyamadasamykonar only on the ground that he did not
have direct heirs. It is rather unfortunate that even inspite of
the several orders of this Court directing the Tahsildar/Deputy
Tahsildar to issue Legal heirship Certificate for the Class-II
heirs also, the respondents have chosen to rely upon an
outdated letter of the year 1991 and has been rejecting such
applications.
8. In the result, the impugned order dated 25.08.2016 is
set aside and consequently, the respondents herein are
directed to conduct a proper enquiry and issue Legal heirship
Certificate of Late Periyamadasamykonar to the petitioner, if
he is otherwise entitled to. Such an exercise shall be
completed within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. This Writ Petition is allowed
accordingly. No costs."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the
order dated 06.03.2020 passed in WP No. 5883 of 2020 (P. Riza Ahmed vs.
The Tahsildar, Walajah Taluk, Walajah, Ranipet District) and contended that
in the aforesaid decision, this Court, after analysing the various decisions in
the field, has concluded that a Tahsildar is empowered to issue even Class II
legal heir certificate provided he is satisfied with the genuineness of the claim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
made by the applicant after conducting an enquiry. Only in cases where the
Tahsildar is not satisfied with the genuineness of the claim, he can direct the
applicant to approach the competent Civil Court. The learned counsel for the
petitioners therefore prayed for allowing the writ petition.
7. Heard both sides. In this writ petition, the petitioners have
challenged an order of rejection passed by the respondent, refusing to issue
legal heir certificate to the petitioners on the ground that they are not Class I
legal heirs of the deceased but Class II legal heirs.
8. The issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra.
The question as to whether a Tahsildar is empowered to issue a legal heir
certificate to a Class II legal heir is settled by way of several judicial
pronouncements. In WP No. 5883 of 2020 dated 06.03.2020, mentioned
supra, this Court has passed the following direction:-
"5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the Class I legal
heir of the deceased Raziya Begum, being the brother, he is
only the Class II legal heir. However, as claimed by the
petitioner, the deceased is a married person and she has no
other legal heirs except her brother. Since in the absence of
any other Class I legal heir, there is no impediment for the
respondent/Tahsildar to consider the said request as per the
guidelines issued by the Government, which reads as follows:
1. As per the present procedure the Tahsildar has to
issue the legal heirship certificate to the direct heir.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
2. The Tahsildars should avoid issuing legal heirship
certificate in respect of the following items mentioned below,
apart from the direct heirs and the applicants should be
instructed to get the certificate through the Civil Court.
a. If there are more than one wife/husband for the
deceased, and even if they have children and if it is evident
that there is a partition dispute among them.
b. When there is a condition to issue heir certificate for
the person, who has left the family for seven years by deeming
that person to be dead.
c. If a person is residing in other District, and does not
have the residence within the limits of the Taluk and if he is
not in possession of a house or property, and does not attend
the enquiry to give his statement to the Tahsildar.
d. If the deceased does not have children and brings up
other children.
6. Even as per the above guidelines, the
respondent/Tahsildar should avoid issuing legal heir certificate
falling under the above four categories only. Since the
petitioner does not fall under anyone of the above categories,
the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back
to the respondent/Tahsildar to reconsider the claim of the
petitioner in the light of the observation stated supra and pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after
conducting enquiry and verifying the fact whether any other
legal heirs are available for the deceased, within a period of 8
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed
of. No costs."
9. In another order passed by this Court on 22.12.2020 in WP No.
15403 of 2020 (V. Devan vs. The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Chennai)
this Court, in para No.7 held that the respondents are not justified in denying
the legal heirship certificate of late. Periyamadasamy Konar only on the
ground that he did not have direct heirs. It was further observed in that order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
that it is rather unfortunate that even inspite of the several orders of this Court
directing the Tahsildar/Deputy Tahsildar to issue legal heir certificate for the
Class II heirs also, the respondents have chosen to rely upon an outdated letter
of the year 1991 and have been rejecting such applications.
10. Therefore, it is clear that the Tahsildar of a Taluk is not in any
manner restrained from issuing a Class II legal heir certificate in the absence
of Class I legal heir. All that required is that the Tahsildar has to satisfy
himself as to the genuineness of the claim of the applicant who seeks for
issuing a Class II legal heir. For arriving at such satisfaction, he has to
conduct an enquiry and to go through the documentary evidence filed in
support thereof. In case, there is any dispute with regard to the status of Class
II legal heir, then he can direct the applicant to approach the Civil Court for
relief. In the light of the above judicial pronouncements made by this Court,
this Court is of the view that only in case of dispute as to the status of an
applicant as a Class I or Class II legal heir, the Tahsildar can direct the
applicant to approach the Civil Court and not in all the cases where there is no
dispute with respect to the status as Class I or Class II legal heir. Thus, the
order of rejection passed by the second respondent herein is legally not
sustainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
11. In the light of the above, the order of rejection dated Nil passed
by the second respondent in this writ petition is set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration of the
application submitted by the petitioners for issuing a Class II legal heir
certificate. The second respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry, afford an
opportunity of hearing to them, consider the documentary evidence that may
be submitted by them and thereafter pass an order on merits and in accordance
with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
1. The Revenue Inspector - (II) (T. Nagar)
Guindy Taluk, Chennai
Tamil Nadu 600 032
2. The Tahsildar
Guindy Taluk, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu 600 032
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
R. MAHADEVAN, J
dhk/rsh
W.P. No. 20069 of 2021
21.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
