A.V.Perumal v. The Additional Chief Secretary/
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) No.14394 of 2025 A.V.Perumal ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary/the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
2. The Tahsildar, Office of Tahsildar Office, Madurai North, Narsingam, Madurai.
... 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 relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.Nil dated-Nil in respect of Application Number - TN-720241204583, and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondent to issue 1/5
the legal heirship certificate to the petitioner stating that the petitioner and his sister Thilagavathi Meenatshi are the legal heirs of Late A.Arumugam, within time stipulated by this Court.
For petitioner : Mr. H.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates For respondents : Mr.S.S.Madhavan Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2 *****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.
2. It is noticed that the petitioner is the brother of the deceased A.Arumugam. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Class-I heirs of Late.A.Arumugam had pre-deceased and therefore, the petitioner, as the brother of Late.A.Arumugam, had applied for Legal Heir Certificate, which has been rejected arbitrarily.
2/5
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn attention to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of A.Balasubramaniayan vs. Additional Chief Secretary/ the Commissioner of Revenue Administration reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 144.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a circular had also issued to give effect to the aforesaid order vide G.O.(Ms).No.110, Revenue and Disaster Management, Revenue Administration Wing, RA-3(2) Section, dated 13.03.2024.
5. A reading of the impugned order indicates that the application has been rejected as per the report of the Village Administrative Officer, Revenue Inspector and Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar.
6. Prima facie, it appears that the impugned order has been passed without considering the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the decision of this Court rendered in A.Balasubramaniayan's case (cited supra) and also the above G.O. Considering the same, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondents to re-do the exercise taking note of the above 3/5
observations, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
Index : Yes / No 11.07.2025 Internet : Yes / No apd To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary/the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
2. The Tahsildar, Office of Tahsildar Office, Madurai North, Narsingam, Madurai.
4/5
C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd 11.07.2025 5/5