J.Mari Kishore v. The Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI J.Mari Kishore S/o. J.Srinivasan (late) No. 23/26 Rani Anna Nagar, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 78 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Secretary Revenue and disaster management department, Fort St.George, Chennai 09.

2. The district collector Chennai district, Chennai 01

3. The Revenue Divisional officer Chennai South, Guindy, Chennai

4. The Tahsildar Mambalam taluk, Chennai 33 ..Respondent(s) The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 4th respondent dated nil, quash the same and further direction, directing the 4th respondent to issue the Legal Heir Certificate to the petitioner as per his application No. TN- 720251010233 dated 10.10.2025 within a stipulated time.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. J.Raja Rao For Respondent(s):

Mr.M.Rajendiran, AGP

ORDER

Challenging the order rejecting the legal heirship certificate dated nil, by the 4th respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother Vijayalakshmi expired on 14.12.2024, for which, the petitioner has obtained a death certificate from the concerned authorities on 20.12.2024. The petitioner is the only son and surviving legal heir of his deceased mother. Further, she did not leave behind any other children or dependents. Therefore, the petitioner made an application for issuance of legal heir certificate in respect of his deceased mother before the 4th respondent on 10.10.2025 for the purpose of transferring and mutating the properties standing in the name of his deceased mother. The said application has been rejected on the ground that details regarding the husband and parent of the deceased were not included. Challenging the said rejection, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father had expired long back and the petitioner is the only son. The petitioner's mother did not have any other dependants. Hence, rejecting the petitioners

representation is wholly unsustainable. This Court may direct the respondents to set aside the impugned order and allow this petition.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. On perusal of the same, it is seen that that petitioner applied for a legal heirship certificate. The respondent, vide order dated nil, has rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the required documents. The impugned order discloses that the petitioner failed to furnish essential documents and no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice is made out. In the absence of requisite material, the respondent cannot be faulted for rejecting the request. The petitioner may file a fresh application with complete documents or if heirship is disputed, approach the competent civil Court.

6. For these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

RLI To

1. The Secretary Revenue and disaster management department, Fort St.George, Chennai 09

2. the district collector Chennai district, Chennai 01

3. the Revenue Divisional officer Chennai South, Guindy, Chennai

4. The Tahsildar Mambalam taluk, Chennai 33

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

RLI 13-03-2026