MADRAS HIGH COURT

G. VENKATESAN VS. THE TAHSILDAR

DATED : 30.09.2016

Summarised Judgement (Scroll for Complete Judgement)

Introduction:

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 07.04.2016 rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of legal heirship certificate on the ground that the petitioner's father V.Ganesa Sastrigal, died on 11.11.1997 and that 20 years have lapsed.

Facts of the Case:

According to the petitioner, the petitioner's father died on 11.11.1997 and he had obtained the death certificate of his father from Zone VIII of Corporation of Chennai in B & D.No.49678/97 issued by the Sanitation Inspector. The petitioner was residing at Jafferkhanpet, Chennai-83. It is further stated that his house and entire building collapsed due to the rain. Hence the petitioner shifted his residence from Jafferkhanpet to Chrompet during the month of April 2016. Then he applied for change of address in the petitioner's family card to the Taluk Supply Officer, Pammal and to various authorities. 

The petitioner submitted his application along with relevant documents before the first respondent to issue the legal heir certificate. Thereafter the first respondent had passed the impugned order in O.Mu.372/2016/A3 dated 08.06.2016. The petitioner had given self declaration duly signed by the Notary Public Advocate and the same was filed along with the application for issuing of legal heir certificate before the first respondent and the self declaration was considered by the first respondent. The third respondent vide report 01.04.2016, recommended to the first respondent and the same was not taken by the first respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Observation of Court:

According to the petitioner, the petitioner's father died on 11.11.1997 and he had obtained the death certificate of his father from Zone VIII of Corporation of Chennai in B & D.No.49678/97 issued by the Sanitation Inspector. The petitioner was residing at Jafferkhanpet, Chennai-83. It is further stated that his house and entire building collapsed due to the rain. Hence the petitioner shifted his residence from Jafferkhanpet to Chrompet during the month of April 2016. Then he applied for change of address in the petitioner's family card to the Taluk Supply Officer, Pammal and to various authorities. The petitioner submitted his application along with relevant documents before the first respondent to issue the legal heir certificate. 

Thereafter the first respondent had passed the impugned order in O.Mu.372/2016/A3 dated 08.06.2016. The petitioner had given self declaration duly signed by the Notary Public Advocate and the same was filed along with the application for issuing of legal heir certificate before the first respondent and the self declaration was considered by the first respondent. The third respondent vide report 01.04.2016, recommended to the first respondent and the same was not taken by the first respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Judgement:

Considering the above facts and circumstances of this case and also in the light of the order stated supra, this Court directs the first respondent to consider application submitted by petitioner afresh, after giving opportunity to all parties concerned, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

-------------------------------------------------

MADRAS HIGH COURT

G.VENKATESAN VS. THE TAHSILDAR

DATED : 30.09.2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.09.2016

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

W.P.No.29681 of 2016 and WMP No.25690 of 2016

G.Venkatesan                                                                              .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tahsildar Pallavaram Taluk Office, Pallavaram, Chennai 600 043.

2.The Revenue Inspector, Pammal Range, Office of the Pallavaram Taluk Office,

   Pallavaram, Chennai 600 043.

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Pammal Village, Pallavaram Taluk, Kancheepurm District.                                                              .. 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 of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in the letter no.Q.Mu.372/2016/A3 dated 08.06.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to issue legal heir certificate to the petitioner after completing all formalities by considering the reports already submitted by the 2nd and 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Jeya Ganeshan

For Respondents : Mr.A.Kumar 

Spl.Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 07.04.2016 rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of legal heirship certificate on the ground that the petitioner's father V.Ganesa Sastrigal, died on 11.11.1997 and that 20 years have lapsed.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's father died on 11.11.1997 and he had obtained the death certificate of his father from Zone VIII of Corporation of Chennai in B & D.No.49678/97 issued by the Sanitation Inspector. The petitioner was residing at Jafferkhanpet, Chennai-83. It is further stated that his house and entire building collapsed due to the rain. Hence the petitioner shifted his residence from Jafferkhanpet to Chrompet during the month of April 2016. Then he applied for change of address in the petitioner's family card to the Taluk Supply Officer, Pammal and to various authorities. The petitioner submitted his application along with relevant documents before the first respondent to issue the legal heir certificate. 

Thereafter the first respondent had passed the impugned order in O.Mu.372/2016/A3 dated 08.06.2016. The petitioner had given self declaration duly signed by the Notary Public Advocate and the same was filed along with the application for issuing of legal heir certificate before the first respondent and the self declaration was considered by the first respondent. The third respondent vide report 01.04.2016, recommended to the first respondent and the same was not taken by the first respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3.Learned counsel placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in R.Manivalraj V.s State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St George, Chennai and another, dated 10.07.2009, wherein this Court considered the case where similar order of rejection was passed and wherein the application seeking for legal heriship certificate was filed after the death of the petitioner's father therein, after a period of 38 years and this Court, after hearing the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents who relied upon the Manual for Revenue Administration, disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. The said order reads thus:-

This writ petition is filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue legal heirship certificate to the petitioner herein in respect of death of his father R. Raju on the application made by the petitioner dated 24.11.2008.

2. The case of the petitioner is that his father, R. Raju Naidu died on 22.2.1971 and as on date, the petitioner and his three sisters are the legal heirs of the deceased R. Raju Naidu. According to the petitioner, he applied for legal heirship certificate to the 2nd respondent by application dated 24.11.2008. But, no orders were passed on the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is in need of the legal heirship certificate in order to dispose of a property to arrange the marriage of one of his sisters. Though the application seeking legal heirship certificate submitted to the 2nd respondent along with the relevant documents was forwarded to Revenue Inspector  I for enquiry, the Revenue Inspector-I, without assigning any reasons, declined to conduct an enquiry and consequently, no legal heirship certificate was issued.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has produced the manual for Revenue Department wherein, in the annexure to the said manual, certain guidelines have been issued with regard to issuance of legal heirship certificate and they are as follows:

According to the learned Additional Advocate General, as per clauses 4 and 5 of the said guidelines, on receipt of the application seeking legal heirship certificate, the Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer concerned have to enquire the applicant, his family members, relatives, neighbours and general public and record statements from them. The officers concerned will also have to carefully scrutinize documents such as ration card, Will, Marriage invitation card and other documents relating to the assets of the deceased, ascertain as to who are the legal heirs of the deceased and thereafter submit a report to the Tahsildar. Learned Additional Advocate General, fairly conceded that no time limit has been prescribed under the guidelines with regard to the issue of legal heirship certificate. 

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that his father died 38 years back cannot be a ground to deny the legal heirship certificate sought for by the petitioner without conducting an enquiry as stipulated in the guidelines has to be accepted. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as per the above guidelines, the Tahsildar concerned has to make an enquiry and issue the legal heirship certificate. Now, as on date, though the petitioner is residing within Tambaram jurisdiction, the application for legal heirship certificate has been made to Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, who is not the competent authority.

4. Considering the above submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General, the petitioner is at liberty to make a request for issue of legal heirship certificate to Tahsildar, Tambaram and on receipt of such application, the authority concerned shall consider and pass orders in accordance with the guidelines issued in the manual for Revenue Department. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of this case and also in the light of the order stated supra, this Court directs the first respondent to consider application submitted by petitioner afresh, after giving opportunity to all parties concerned, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

30.09.2016 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No kkd B.RAJENDRAN,J., kkd To

1.The Tahsildar Pallavaram Taluk Office, Pallavaram, Chennai 600 043.

2.The Revenue Inspector, Pammal Range, Office of the Pallavaram Taluk Office, Pallavaram, Chennai 600 043.

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Pammal Village, Pallavaram Taluk, Kancheepurm District.

W.P.No.29681 of 2016 and WMP No.25690 of 2016 30.09.2016