Judgment : 1. The petitioner seeks for issue of a writ of Certorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the order in D.Dis.55101 of 96 (H1) dated 9. 1996 issued by the first respondent, the District Revenue Officer, Salem and quash the same. 2. Heard the advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner one Dhanalakshmi claims that she is the widow of late Natarjan and resident of Annai Illam, 330 Salem Main road, Kumarpalayam. According to her, for securing certain benefits she had moved the local Tahsildar for issue of legal heir certificate. The said certificates was issued in her favour. Thereafter the 3rd respondent herein claiming that she had been adopted by the said late Natarjan had moved the Tahsildar as well as the revenue Divisional Officer. The Tahsildar by his order dated 3. 1996 held that being a civil dispute it has to be decided by a civil court and directed the parties to go before the Civil Court. Besides, it was also ordered that the legal heir certificate which was already issued shall be kept is abeyance. 3. Consequently, the 3rd respondent had moved the first respondent. The first respondent had remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and disposal. This order dated 9. 1996 is being challenged. This order on the face of it cannot be sustained. But at any rate this Court need not go into the validity of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar or for that matter the order passed by the 1st respondent herein. There is no provision which had conferred power on the Revenue Authorities such as Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer, District Revenue Officer to decide as to who is the legal heir or who is the successor of a deceased individual. In case of dispute as to succession or inheritance the parties have go before the competent civil court. The Competent civil court is bound to decide the dispute as to who is the legal heir and who is entitled to the properties or assets left by the deceased. The Certificates, if any issued by the Revenue Officer like Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer will not in any manner affect the rights accrued to the individual by way of succession. The Certificates, if any issued by the Revenue Officer like Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer will not in any manner affect the rights accrued to the individual by way of succession. It is open to the petitioner of the third respondent to go before the competent civil court and establish their rights and it is totally unnecessary to challenge the orders passed by the 1st respondent herein by filing the writ of Certorarified Mandamus as the entire action is misconceived. It is unfortunate that so many persons like petitioner had been driven to the Revenue Officers like Tahsildar for legal heir certificates, which has no sanctity in law. With these directions, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P. No.16871 of 1997 is also dismissed.