E.Mallikarjun v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH and W.M.P.No.35246 of 2025 E.Mallikarjun, S/o.Eswarappa ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiyattam Division, Gudiyattam - 632 602, Vellore District.
2. The Tashildar, Gudiyattam Taluk, Gudiyattam - 632 602, Vellore District.
3.Smt.Priya, W/o.Vijayakumar ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent from in any way proceeding with an enquiry in pursuance to the summons in No. NaKa A1/2008/2024 dated 16.05.2025 with respect to the cancellation of Legal Heir Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent in Mu.Mu./13618/2007 PaVaA/903/2007 dated 24.12.2007 to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.Ravindran 1/4
For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.T.M.Rajangam, Government Advocate [R1 & R2] *****
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from proceeding further with the enquiry pursuant to the summons issued on 16.05.2025 wherein the enquiry is conducted for the cancellation of the legal heirship certificate issued by the second respondent on 24.12.2007.
2. Heard Mr.K.A.Ravindran, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.T.M.Rajangam, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent ought not to have entertained the application and issued summons 2/4
after nearly 18 years after the issuance of legal heirship certificate by the third respondent i.e. on 24.12.2007.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the official respondents submitted that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry and his statement was also recorded and the submission of the third respondent was also recorded and a report has been called for from the second respondent. The relevant documents were placed before this Court.
5. In the light of the above development, no useful purpose will be served in restraining the first respondent from taking a decision. However, the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of such an application after 18 years should also be considered by the first respondent before taking the final decision. This direction will sufficiently take care of the grievance expressed by the petitioner. N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
gm 3/4
This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 21.08.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No gm To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiyattam Division, Gudiyattam - 632 602, Vellore District.
2. The Tashildar, Gudiyattam Taluk, Gudiyattam - 632 602, Vellore District.
4/4