Madras High Court
Shanthi vs The Tahsildar on 22 December, 2023
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
W.P.No.24727 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 04.09.2023
Pronounced on : 22.12.2023
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
W.P. No.24727 of 2023
Shanthi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tahsildar
Mambalam Taluk
K.K.Nagar
Chennai - 600 078.
2.The Principal Secretary
Revenue and Disaster Management
Fort St.George
Chennai - 600 009. ... Respondents
[R2 suo motu impleaded vide order dated
04.09.2023 in W.P.No.24727 of 2023]
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
respondent in OO.Mu.EE.1/1207/2022 dated 30.09.2022 and quash the same
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24727 of 2023
and consequently direct the respondent to issue legal heir certificate to the
petitioner for the death of S.Komala.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Raja
For Respondents : Mr.M.Bindran
Additional Govt Pleader [R1, R2]
ORDER
The petitioner and her sister Komala are the children of certain
Vijayaraghavalu, and they both got married. Her sister had no issue, out of
her wedlock and her husband predeceased her. The petitioner's sister
Komala is also stated to have died on 08.07.2010. Claiming herself to be
the Class-II legal heir of Komala, on 12.07.2021 the petitioner had applied
for a legal heir certificate before the respondent. The respondent however
vide his proceedings dated 30.09.2022, has rejected her application, citing
Circular No.11/2017 dated 09.08.2017 of the Commissioner of Revenue
Administration. This is now under challenge.
2. In the counter affidavit filed, the first respondent-Tahsildar essentially
relied on the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.Venkatachalam Vs Tahsildar, Kumarapalayam Taluk, Namakkal
District [2022(4) CTC 1].
3. Heard both sides. At the outset, it must be stated that the Tahsildar is
blissfully unaware about all that transpired, subsequent to the Circular
No.11/2017 dated 09.08.2017, issued by the Principal Secretary,
Commissioner of Revenue Administration. This circular was subsequently
replaced by Circular No.9/2019 dated 24.09.2019. And when the Tahsildar
concerned passed the impugned proceedings, the judgment of the Full Bench
in P.Venkatachalam case, has already been pronounced, and prior to the
date of impugned proceedings, the Government has come out with G.O.(Ms)
No.478, Revenue & Disaster Management, Revenue Administration Wing,
RA-3(2) Section, dated 29.09.2022. This circular does not provide for
issuing legal heir certificate beyond the category of persons for whom it is
intended, and it does not cover Class-II heirs. In its judgment, the Full
Bench has indicated that the Tahsildar is bound by the circular issued. It
also proceeds to say that the limited ground under which the mandamus may
lie only when the Tahsildar does not decide the issue in terms of the G.O.,
applicable. However, what should be the ambit of the government order
must be decided by the Government, and this Court can at the best suggest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the Government, may the ambit of G.O.(Ms) No.478 slightly broad based.
4. It is not adequately known the purpose for which the petitioner had
applied for the legal heir certificate. Here, if the intent of the petitioner is
for succeeding to the estate of her deceased sister Komala, then in terms of
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, the heirs may vary, depending on
how the deceased female Hindu has acquired the property. That exercise
cannot be undertaken by the Tahsildar.
5. In fitness of things, this Court does not consider that notwithstanding the
fact that the Tahsildar had relied on a wrong circular, yet it has no adequate
enough reasons to interfere with the conclusion. However, the petitioner
may apply to the Tahsildar for a relationship certificate, and as and when
such application is filed, the Tahsildar may decide it on merits, after holding
an enquiry. It is underscored that any such certificate may not by itself be
adequate enough to clothe the petitioner the right to the properties of her
sister Komala, as it would be governed by Personal Law of the parties.
6. Subject to the observations hereinabove made in the last preceeding
paragraph, the petition is disposed of. No costs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22.12.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
ds
To:
1.The Tahsildar
Mambalam Taluk
K.K.Nagar
Chennai - 600 078.
2.The Principal Secretary
Revenue and Disaster Management
Fort St.George
Chennai - 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
Pre-delivery order in
22.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
