Vijay v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA and WMP.No.7009 of 2026 Vijay ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Revenue Divisional officer Dharmapuri Revenue Division, Dharmapuri.

2. The Tahsildar Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmpauri District.

3. Saroja

4. Manimegalai

5. Kala

6. Sakthivel

7. Kumutha ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the undated impugned order of rejection issued by the 2nd respondent in Application No TN-7202509121561 and to quash the same, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue legal heirship certificate for the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Neelakandan, AAG asst. by Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, SGP, for R1 & R2

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the undated impugned order of rejection issued by the 2nd respondent in Application No TN-7202509121561 and consequently, to direct the second respondent to issue a legal heirship certificate to the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father had 2 wives. His first wife is the third respondent, through her he had 2 children, namely, Sakthivel and Kumutha. Since the third respondent was not in good health, she consented to the father's second marriage. Thereafter, the father married the petitioner's mother and had 2 children through her, namely, the petitioner and his sister Manimegalai. The petitioner's father died in a road accident on 11.08.2025 and the death certificate was issued on 29.08.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for issuance of legal heirship certificate, which was rejected by the second respondent on the ground that his father had 2 wives, and he was directed to approach the Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and peruse the materials available on record.

4. On a mere perusal of the impugned order would indicate that it is a non-speaking order passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the said order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and remitted back to the second respondent. The second respondent shall consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

23-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order PVS To

1. The Revenue Divisional officer Dharmapuri Revenue Division, Dharmapuri

2. The Tahsildar Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmpauri District

P.T.ASHA, J.

PVS 23-02-2026