V.Raththinachalam, v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.(MD)No.4776 of 2026 V.Raththinachalam ... Petitioner vs.
1.The District Collector, Collectorate Complex, Karur District, Karur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai, Karur District.
3.The Tahsildar, O/o. the Tahsildar, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the third respondent cryptic order in online Application No.TN-720250823490 dated 07.09.2025, and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the third respondent to issue legal heirs certificate in online Application No.TN-720250823490 dated 27.10.2025 and consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.06.2025. 1/5
For Petitioner :Mr.J.Sathiaraj For Respondents :Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate *****
O R D E R
The petitioner challenges the order passed by the third respondent in Online Application No. TN-720250823490 dated 07.09.2025.
2. According to the petitioner, his parents are deceased. He had two sisters, namely Gokilambal and Mounasarasu. The said Mounasarasu was married to one Ramalingam, and both of them died issueless. Consequently, the petitioner and his sister Gokilambal alone remain as the Class-I legal heirs. The petitioner submitted an online application before the third respondent seeking issuance of a legal heir certificate in respect of his deceased parents. However, the application was rejected on the ground that a similar representation had already been submitted by the petitioner before the second respondent.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 2/5
4. The third respondent is the competent authority to issue a legal heir certificate. Merely because the petitioner had submitted a similar representation before the second respondent cannot be a valid ground for rejecting the application submitted to the competent authority. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application is not legally sustainable.
5. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.09.2025 passed by the third respondent is set aside. The third respondent is directed to process the petitioner's application afresh, after issuing notice to all necessary parties, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes / No 03.03.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr 3/5
To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate Complex, Karur District, Karur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai, Karur District.
3.The Tahsildar, O/o. the Tahsildar, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District.
4/5
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
cmr 03.03.2026 5/5