Madras High Court
S.Venkatraman vs The Thasildar on 23 September, 2021
WP No.17101 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
W.P. No. 17101 of 2021
S.Venkatraman .. Petitioner
Versus
The Thasildar
Perambur Taluk
Chennai - 600 011 .. Respondent
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent
R.C.No.B3/2541/2020 dated 03.02.2021 and quash the same as illegal,
incompetent and ultravires and consequently direct the respondent to issue
Class II Legal heir certificate to the petitioner's deceased sister namely,
S.Hemakalyani died on 25.06.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Balaji
For Respondent : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu
Government Counsel
ORDER
Challenge is to the order of rejection dated 03.02.2021 passed by the
respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner for issuance of legal heir
certificate. The order of rejection has been passed on the ground that the
petitioner is not Class I legal heir and he is Class II legal heir by placing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.17101 of 2021
reliance on the Circular dated 24.09.2019 of the Additional Chief Secretary/
Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.
2. According to the petitioner, his sister S.Hemakalyani
D/o P.Sankaranarayanan, died as a spinster on 25.06.2020. His father and
mother also died on 24.05.1984 and 07.09.2020 respectively. After her death,
the petitioner is the only Surviving Class - II legal heir and hence, he has
applied for the legal Heir Certificate enclosing all the relevant documents.
Based on the application, an enquiry was conducted but the respondent passed
an order dated 03.02.2021 rejecting his application on the ground that he is not
the direct legal heir of the deceased S.Hemakalyani, but he is a Class II heir.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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:
"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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.17101 of 2021
(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.
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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.17101 of 2021
“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 with
a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.17101 of 2021
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 considered, on the
basis of the statement of the claimants and 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.17101 of 2021
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."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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
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 petitions.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing
for the respondents submitted that the orders of rejection were passed on the
basis of the Circular dated 24.06.2019 issued by the Additional Chief
Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration wherein it was
specifically ordered that the Tahsildar are only empowered to issue legal heir
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.17101 of 2021
certificate for all direct legal heirs through online. Therefore, on the basis of
the aforesaid Circular No.9/2019 dated 24.09.2019 issued by the Revenue
Administration and Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, the
order, which is impugned in this writ petition, is proper. The learned
Government Counsel therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government
Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has challenged an order of
rejection dated 03.02.2021 passed by the respondent, refusing to issue legal
heir certificate to the petitioner on the ground that he is not Class I legal heir
of the deceased but he is a Class II legal heir. Such an order was passed on the
basis of the circular dated 24.09.2019 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary
/Commissioner of Revenue Administration.
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.17101 of 2021
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.
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."
8. In another order passed by this Court on 22.12.2020 in WP No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.17101 of 2021
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
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 respondent has chosen to rely upon an outdated letter of
the year 1991 and has been rejecting such application.
9. 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 present case, the respondent has relied on the Circular No.
9/2019 dated 24.09.2019 to reject the application of the petitioner. In the
light of the above judicial pronouncements made by this Court, this Court is of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.17101 of 2021
the view that the Circular dated 24.09.2019 has no statutory force. Even
otherwise, 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.
10. In the light of the above, the order of rejection dated 03.02.2021,
passed by the respondent in this writ petition, is set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration of the application
submitted by the petitioner for issuing a Class II legal heir certificate. The
respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry, afford an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner, consider the documentary evidence that may be submitted by
him 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.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
23.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
av/rsh
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.17101 of 2021
The Thasildar,
Perambur Taluk,
Chennai - 600 011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.17101 of 2021
R. MAHADEVAN, J
av/rsh
WP No. 17101 of 2021
23.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
