Vr.Arunachalam, S/O.Veerappan v. The Tahsildar,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR VR.Arunachalam ... Petitioner /Vs./ 1.The Tahsildar, Office of Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
2.The Revenue Inspector, Sakkottai, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in Oo.Mu.A2/11129/2016 dated 28.12.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to issue Legal Heirship Certificate to the petitioner by following the due process of law. For Petitioners : Mr.Dilipan Pandian for Mr.N.Balasubramanian For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Mr.Dilipan Pandian, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents(official respondents) are before this Court.
2.With consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State counsel, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of.
3.Entire matter turns on a very narrow compass. 4.Writ petitioner's father Veerappan died on 31.10.1969 and the writ petitioner sometime in 2016 made an application for issuance of 1/4
Legal Heir Certificate. This application of the writ petitioner for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate for his deceased father Veerappan ran into rough whether. The jurisdictional Tahsildar, namely Tahsildar Karaikudi Taluk (first respondent before this Court) passed an 'order dated 28.12.2016' (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity), which reads as follows: 5.Adverting to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that his request for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate has been declined on the sole ground that applicant, namely the writ petitioner is residing in Chennai and that he is not residing in Karaikudi. Learned counsel submits that there is no disputation about this on facts.
Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the name and address of the addressee in the impugned order and points out that the applicant has given Chennai address even in the application for Legal Heir Certificate and has not given Karaikudi address as mentioned in the impugned order.
Court to the Death Certificate of writ petitioner's father being a certificate dated 14.11.1969 issued by the Corporation of Chennai which reads as follows:
6.It is pointed out that residence of the writ petitioner's father has been given only as Karaikudi in Ramnad District in the Death Certificate also. It is also pointed out that the duration of illness is between 11.10.1969 and 31.10.1969. In this regard, it is submitted by learned counsel for writ petitioner that the writ petitioner's father went over to Chennai only for medical treatment sometime in the first week of October-1969, was hospitalized, but died on 31.10.1969 or in other words, it is the specific and emphatic say of learned counsel for writ petitioner that writ petitioner's father was residing only in Karaikudi, but went over to Chennai only for the purpose of medical treatment and he died in Chennai. It is pointed out that writ petitioner's father was never 3/4
residing in Chennai, on the contrary, he was residing only in his permanent address in 'West Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Kandenoor, erstwhile Ramnad District now Sivakangai District'. 7.At this juncture, learned State counsel submitted that the application for Legal Heir Certificate made by the writ petitioner can be considered in accordance with law, if the writ petitioner produces requisite documents. Writ petitioner undertakes to do so. 8.Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the first respondent is directed to consider the application of the writ petitioner for Legal Heir Certificate in accordance with law and either issue legal heir certificate or send suitable communication to the writ petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9.Instant Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) rmk To 1.The Tahsildar, Office of Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
2.The Revenue Inspector, Sakkottai, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-97246[F] dated 11/11/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.N.BALASUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-97413[F] dated 11/11/2019 KK/SAR/18.11.2019/4P-5C/ 4/4