R.Kaliyaraj v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH and WMP (MD) No.2778 of 2025 R.Kaliyaraj : Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Collector, Madurai and District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District.
3. The Tahsildar, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai District.
: Respondents P RAYER:
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the respondent relating to the impugned rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent through online in Application No.TN7201809051980 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents to issue legal Heirship Certificate of the petitioners deceased grandfather Mr.Parthasarathy who died on 17.11.1990 by adding his legal heirs 1/5
Rajammal (Wife), Gajendran(1st son), Ramasamy(2nd Son), Padmavathy (daughter) within a time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan for M/s.Right Law Associates For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
Challenging the rejection order passed by the third respondent for issuance of legal heir certificate, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The petitioner claims to be the only son of his parents and seeks to claim his ancestral property. To do so, he requires a legal heir certificate for his grandfather and father. In this regard, he filed an online application with the third respondent, requesting for issuance of a legal heir certificate that includes legal heirs, viz., Rajammal (wife), Gajendran (1st son), Ramasamy (2nd son), and Padmavathy (daughter), by following a proper enquiry. However, the third respondent rejected the application without providing any reason. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2/5
3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that since the petitioner contends that there was no reason assigned in the impugned rejection order, there may be a direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case on merits and in accordance with the law.
4. In the light of the above submissions made by both sides, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order on the ground that no proper reason has been assigned and accordingly, the impugned rejection order passed by the third respondent, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for a fresh consideration. The third respondent shall pass a reasoned speaking order, purely on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13.03.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PKN 3/5
To
1. The District Collector, Madurai and District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District.
3. The Tahsildar, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai District.
4/5
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
PKN W.P.(MD) No.3842 of 2025 13.03.2025 5/5