← Library
Madras High CourtWP/8747/2026disposed of with direction

Sujatha v. The District Collector

2026-03-06Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06-03-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Sujatha Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The District Collector First Floor, Collectorate, Nagapattinam- 611 001.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Nagapattinam- 611 001.

3.The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Nagapattinam-611 001.

Respondent(s) PRAYER; This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to consider petitioner representations dated 27.12.2025 and Application bearing No.TN7202509232310 dated 23.09.2025 and to issue legal Heir Certificate in our favour and to pass appropriate order within a time frame fixed by this Honble court.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.A.Gokula Krishna For Respondent:

Mr.S.Rajesh, GA

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider petitioner representations dated 27.12.2025 and Application bearing

No.TN- 7202509232310 dated 23.09.2025 and to issue legal Heir Certificate in our favour and to pass appropriate order within a time frame fixed by this Honble court.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the legally wedded wife of the deceased whose marriage was solemnised in accordance with customary rites. The petitioner's husband died in the year 2024, leaving behind the petitioner and the children born through the said wedlock as his legal heirs. The petitioner submitted an online application on 23.09.2025 before the third respondent along with all requisite supporting documents including the death certificate, proof of marriage and birth certificates of the children. However, the third respondent has neither processed the application not passed any order and has orally refused issuance of the legal heir certificate solely on the ground that the petitioner is the second wife. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioners application within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that if the second respondent has not passed any order, there is an

appeal remedy available before the RDO. Without filing an appeal, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court, which is not maintainable and the same is liable to dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. As rightly submitted by the learned Government Counsel that since it is a disputed question of fact, there is an appeal remedy available before the RDO. In view of the above, this Court cannot be decided the issue. Without filing an appeal before the appellate authority, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, which is not sustainable.

7. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. 06-03-2026 rli Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

M.DHANDAPANI J.

rli To 1.The District Collector First Floor, Collectorate, Nagapattinam- 611 001.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Nagapattinam- 611 001.

3.The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Nagapattinam-611 001.

06-03-2026