Madras High Court
Muneeswaran vs The District Revenue Officer on 20 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.7545 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD)No.7545 of 2025
Muneeswaran ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District.
3.Devakumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated
04.02.2025 passed by the second respondent vide RDOTKS/5153/2023-B2 and
quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Leo Daniel Kavin
For R1 and R2 : Mr.C.Venakesh Kumar
Special Government Pleader
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.7545 of 2025
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the
second respondent, dated 04.02.2025.
2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the
admission stage itself.
3. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the third
respondent, notice to the third respondent is hereby dispensed with.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the
petitioner's father, Vellaisamy, married Selvi, the mother of the third respondent,
on 07.04.1985. However, the said Selvi was already married to one Sivagnanam,
and their marriage had not been dissolved. When the petitioner's father
questioned the same, the said Selvi left the home. Subsequently, the marriage
between the petitioner's father and Selvi was dissolved on 27.03.1987. Thereafter,
the petitioner's father married Mariammal, the petitioner's mother and they led a
peaceful matrimonial life. The petitioner's father passed away on 06.02.2011,
leaving behind the petitioner, the petitioner's mother and the petitioner's sister as
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
his legal heirs. After his demise, they applied for legal heirship certificate and
obtained the same. Subsequently, based on a petition received from one
Devakumar, who also claims to be the petitioner's father's son, the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Kadayanallur (the second respondent herein), vide
proceedings dated 04.02.2025, cancelled the legal heirship certificate issued on
18.08.2017 on the ground that the petitioner's mother had concealed the judgment
and decree passed in O.S. No. 26 of 2016, dated 01.09.2016 and obtained the
legal heirship certificate dated 18.08.2017. Challenging the said proceedings, the
petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1
and 2 submits that, against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer/second respondent herein, the petitioner has a revisional remedy before
the District Revenue Officer / first respondent within a period of one year from
the date of passing of the order in appeal, as per Clause 7(2) of the guidelines
issued by the Principal Secretary to Government in the Annexure to G.O.(Ms)No.
478, Revenue and Disaster Management [RA-3(2)] Department, dated
29.09.2022. However, instead of invoking the said revisional remedy, the
petitioner has directly approached this Court.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
6. Recording the submission made by the learned Special Government
Pleader that the petitioner is having a revisional remedy before the first
respondent as per Clause 7(2) of the guidelines issued by the Principal Secretary
to Government in the Annexure to G.O.(Ms)No.478, Revenue and Disaster
Management [RA-3(2)] Department, dated 29.09.2022, this writ petition is
disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the first respondent and
raise all the grounds raised in this writ petition in the revision. In the event, if any
revision is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order, the first respondent shall entertain the revision and dispose of the same
on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving
due opportunity to the petitioner, the third respondent as well as all other persons,
who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of three months
thereafter. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views
with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the first respondent to
consider the same on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs.
NCC : Yes / No 20.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
smn2
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
To:-
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
smn2
20.03.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
