A.C.O.Madhava Rao v. The District Revenue Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.08.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH A.C.O.Madhava Rao ..

Petitioner v.

1. The District Revenue Officer Office of the Revenue Office Chennai 600 001

2. The Tahsildar Office of the Tahsildar Taluk Office Perambur, Chennai 600 011 ..

Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to issue the legal heir certificate based on the online Application No.7202402232479 dated 23.02.2024.

For Petitioner ::

Mr.B.Chandran For Respondents ::

Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.T.M.Rajangam Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a mandamus to the second respondent to issue the legal heirship certificate based on the online application submitted by the petitioner on 23.02.2024.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The case of the petitioner is that his father late Akkidasari China Obaiah, S/o Rosaiah died on 20.12.2003 leaving behind the petitioner and his sister. According to the petitioner, his father was living at Pulianthope, Chennai and he had gone to Andhra Pradesh to meet his relatives, at which point of time he died there. The petitioner submitted application seeking for issuance of legal heirship certificate. Since the same was not acted upon, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General, placing reliance on the written instructions received from the second respondent, submitted that there are absolutely no documents to establish that the petitioner's father was

living in Chennai. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the two documents that are relied upon on the side of the petitioner, are of the year 2025 and whereas, the petitioner's father had died in the year 2003. Therefore, unless and otherwise the petitioner is able to produce documents to establish that his father was residing at Chennai prior to the year 2003, the second respondent cannot issue any legal heirship certificate.

5. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there are documents to establish that the petitioner's father was residing in Chennai prior to 2003.

6. Considering the above submissions, it will suffice to direct the petitioner to submit the documents available to establish that his father was residing in Chennai prior to the year 2003. If any such documents are presented, the same shall be considered by the second respondent and the application shall be acted upon. In the absence of the same, the second respondent shall convey the decision to the petitioner within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Index : yes/no 28.08.2025 ss To

1. The District Revenue Officer Office of the Revenue Office Chennai 600 001

2. The Tahsildar Office of the Tahsildar Taluk Office Perambur, Chennai 600 011

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

ss 28.08.2025