← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/23515/2025disposed of

A.Vijaya v. The District Collector,

2025-08-28Honourable Mr Justice C. Saravanan7 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN A.Vijaya ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District 625 020.

2.The District Revenue Officer, District Collectorate, Madurai 625 020, Madurai District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collectorate Complex, Madurai 625 020, Madurai District.

4.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Vadipatti 625 218, Madurai District.

... Respondents 1/7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 4 to consider petitioner's representations dated 07.07.2025 addressed to the 3rd Respondent and the representation dated 24.07.2025 addressed to Respondents 1-4 and issue legal heirship certificate to the Petitioner as per eligibility within the time frame which may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Iyappan For Respondents : Mr.D.Ghandiraj Special Government Pleader

ORDER

Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

2.The writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 07.07.2025 and 24.07.2025 and to issue the legal heirship certificate to the petitioner as per eligibility. 3.The petitioner is the daughter of late.G.Venkidasamy, who has married the petitioner's mother, namely, V.Gnanammal. After the death of the petitioner's 2/7

father on 18.02.2023, the petitioner approached the fourth respondent/Tahsildar for issuance of a legal heirship certificate. 4.Since the legal heirship certificate was not issued, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No.291 of 2025, whereby, the writ petition was disposed of, by directing the petitioner to file an application for issuance of a legal heirship certificate on the off-line mode. 5.In this background, the petitioner has filed an application in the off-line mode, which, however, came to be rejected, pursuant to which, the third respondent has conducted an enquiry on 17.05.2025, wherein, the petitioner was asked to file once again an application through online mode, pursuant to which, the petitioner made an application through online mode. 6.However, after the enquiry, the fourth respondent rejected the application stating that the age difference between the petitioner's elder brother and the petitioner's mother was only 6 years.

3/7

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's mother is a rustic illiterate lady, who has no records of her birth as she was born in the year 1945 or 1950 as per the records that are available with the petitioner's family.

8.It is submitted that as per Aadhar Card, the age of the petitioner's mother is 75 and the year of the birth was given as 1950 and therefore, the present age of the petitioner's mother will be about 75 years. 9.It is submitted that as per Voter Identity Card, the age of the petitioner's mother was about 50 as on 01.01.1995, in which case, the petitioner's mother age will be around 80 years as on date. It is submitted that the petitioner herself is only 6 years and the petitioner's elder brother is 69 years. 10.It is therefore submitted that the petitioner's mother would be 80 years old as has been given in the Voter Identity Card issued to the petitioner's mother on 31.12.1997, which would be more accurate considering the age of the petitioner and the petitioner's elder brother, namely, V.Ramachandran. It is 4/7

therefore submitted that the second respondent to be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 07.07.2025. 11.The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be plausible, as the petitioner's mother cannot be aged 75 years, if the petitioner's brother's age is only 69 as on date. It is quite possible that the petitioner's mother was born in the year 1945 in terms of the Voter Identity Card, which gives the age of the petitioner's mother as on 01.01.1995 as 50, in which case, the petitioner's mother age will be about 80 years. 12.It is submitted that this age would be an approximate age and the age of the petitioner's mother in all likely would be 90 years. Though in the death certificate issued on 02.03.2023 for the petitioner's father, who died on 18.02.2023, the age of the petitioner's father has been given as 84 years. 13.Considering the fact that the petitioner's mother hails from the rural area with rustic background, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to 5/7

dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 07.07.2025 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14.The Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid directions. No costs.

Index : Yes / No 28.08.2025 Internet : Yes / No mm To 1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District 625 020.

2.The District Revenue Officer, District Collectorate, Madurai 625 020, Madurai District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collectorate Complex, Madurai 625 020, Madurai District.

4.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Vadipatti 625 218, Madurai District.

6/7

C.SARAVANAN, J.

mm 28.08.2025 7/7