Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr. D. Venkateswaralu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. What is challenged in this writ petition is a communication of the respondent in his proceedings O.Mu.Ee.1/19499/10 dated 13.07.2010 by which the legal heir certificate sought for by the petitioner, on the death of his mother Kuppammal, wife of Mr. Natesa Naicker, who died on 18.07.1991, was rejected and consequently, the petitioner was directed to approach the competent civil Court by filing appropriate suit or to initiate succession proceedings. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother Kuppammal, wife of Mr. Natesa Naicker who was residing at No.13, 2nd Main Road, C.I.T. Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 35 died on 18.07.1991 leaving behind the petitioner, his sisters Mrs. V. Rukmani and Mrs. N. Meenakshi as her legal heirs to succeed her estate and the father of the petitioner pre-deceased his mother. The petitioner also enclosed the death certificate issued by the Corporation of Chennai on 02.09.1991 along with the typed set of papers. According to the petitioner, since the legal heirs of the deceased were illiterate, they could not apply for the legal heir certificate immediately after the death of their mother to the respondent, due to inadvertence. On 16.06.2010, the petitioner submitted an application seeking legal heir certificate on the death of his mother, by enclosing the death certificate issued by the Corporation of Chennai along with the available documents, particularly a settlement deed executed by his mother vide document No. 406 of 1986 registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar, T. Nagar, Chennai, but the respondent has issued the impugned communication dated 13.07.2010 informing the petitioner to approach the civil court or initiate appropriate succession proceedings before this Court on the ground that the respondent could not ascertain the details of the surviving legal heirs due to the fact that his mother died 20 years back. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that there is no dispute among his sisters and her mother left the property at the above address and that the property was also settled in his favour. When the petitioner applied for a planning permission to the Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai, he was asked to produce the legal heir certificate and therefore, he filed the application before the respondent. When the petitioner applied for a planning permission to the Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai, he was asked to produce the legal heir certificate and therefore, he filed the application before the respondent. Further, the refusal of the respondent to issue legal heir certificate is against law and principles of natural justice and it is also liable to be set aside on the ground of arbitrariness. Also, the respondent, without making any enquiry about the surviving legal heirs of the deceased, passed the impugned order by merely stating that the petitioner's mother died 20 years back. 5. The respondent has filed a counter stating that the petitioner had applied for issuance of legal heir certificate in the office of the respondent on 16.06.2010 enclosing the death certificate of his mother Kuppammal, issued by the Corporation of Chennai. On receipt of such application, the respondent forwarded it to the concerned Revenue Inspector to ascertain the genuineness of the legal heirs of the deceased. The enquiry revealed that since the petitioner's mother died on 18.07.1991, the Revenue Inspector was not able to ascertain as to who are the legal heirs of the deceased. Based on such report dated 09.07.2010, the respondent has rightly rejected the petitioner's request. The averments in para Nos. 4 and 5 have not been traversed by the respondent as they are not known to the respondent and the petitioner was put to strict proof of the same. The averments in para-6 are denied as false. The petitioner was not prevented from in any manner in any of his activities, including construction of any building. The claim of the petitioner is against the law and therefore the order of the respondent is liable to be upheld inasmuch as it is intra vires, sustainable under law and not against the principles of natural justice. 6. It is the stand of the respondent that the enquiry made through the Revenue Inspector clearly indicates that the legal heirs of the deceased could not be ascertained and consequently, the claim of the petitioner for issuance of legal heir certificate could not be considered. It is further stated that the whereabouts of the petitioner's sisters viz., V. Rukmani and N. Meenakshi could not be ascertained and the petitioner also has not furnished such details. It is further stated that the whereabouts of the petitioner's sisters viz., V. Rukmani and N. Meenakshi could not be ascertained and the petitioner also has not furnished such details. The enquiry further revealed that the petitioner's sister Meenakshi died and the whereabouts of the legal heirs of the said Meenakshi could not be ascertained. According to the respondent, Section 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stipulates one year for registration of birth or death from the date of birth or death, as the case may be. In this case, the petitioner, having slept over for more than 20 years, cannot blame the respondent for refusing to issue the legal heir certificate as the same is hit by laches and the application was submitted beyond reasonable time. The respondent has no authority to condone long period of delay of 20 years and therefore the claim of the petitioner has to be adjudicated only before the Court of law. Since the details of the petitioner's sisters or their legal heirs could not be ascertained due to passage of time, the genuineness of the claim can be considered only by the Court of law. Further, the petitioner has admitted that there is a dispute among the legal heirs of the deceased and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed to compel the respondent to issue a legal heir certificate, which is impermissible under Law. The petitioner is only attempting to get the seal of approval from the respondent notwithstanding the delay on his part in applying for issuance of legal heir certificate at the earliest point of time and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order of the respondent is arbitrary. The respondent, without conducting any enquiry on the basis of the documents filed along with the application has simply passed the impugned order. The respondent passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, he prayed for quashing the impugned order passed by the respondent. 8. The respondent, without conducting any enquiry on the basis of the documents filed along with the application has simply passed the impugned order. The respondent passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, he prayed for quashing the impugned order passed by the respondent. 8. Repudiating the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that based on the report of the Revenue Inspector, the respondent had rightly passed the impugned order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for issuance of a legal heir certificate. The enquiry report revealed that the sisters of the petitioner or their legal heirs could not be traced and the details of the same were also not furnished by the petitioner. It is the vehement contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that as per Section 13 (3) Act , the petitioner ought to have submitted an application within one year from the death of his mother, but after 20 years from the date of death, the petitioner has submitted such an application and therefore, the respondent is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 9. I have heard the counsel for both sides, perused the materials on record and gone through the relevant provisions of law. 10. It is not in dispute that Kuppammal, wife of Mr. Natesa Naicker died on 08.07.1991. After lapse of 20 years from the date of death of Kuppammal, the petitioner had submitted an application to the respondent on 16.06.2010 with a request to issue legal heir certificate. It is seen that the petitioner has also produced the settlement deed registered as document No. 406/1986 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, T. Nagar, Chennai executed by his mother in his favour. It is evident that on receipt of the application from the petitioner, the respondent had forwarded it to the Revenue Inspector concerned for conducting appropriate enquiry. Accordingly, the Revenue Inspector conducted an enquiry into the matter and after enquiry, a report was filed stating that the whereabouts of the sisters of the petitioner namely Rukmani and Meenakshi could not be ascertained. The enquiry also revealed that the petitioner's sister Meenakshi died and the whereabouts of the legal heirs of the said Meenakshi also could not be ascertained. 11. The enquiry also revealed that the petitioner's sister Meenakshi died and the whereabouts of the legal heirs of the said Meenakshi also could not be ascertained. 11. It is claimed by the petitioner that he had submitted the application dated 16.06.2010 to the respondent seeking legal heir certificate by duly enclosing the death certificate dated 02.09.1991 issued by the Corporation of Madras. Even though the petitioner has enclosed the death certificate of the deceased Kuppammal, the same can only be taken into account by the competent civil court at the time of verifying the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner, along with the evidence, both oral as well as documentary. 12. Moreover, it appears that there is a dispute over the claim for legal heirship. When such being the position, the petitioner has diligently approached the respondent to obtain a legal heir certificate only for the purpose of putting up construction, after 20 years from the date of death of his mother, which is hit by the principles of laches and lapses. Considering this aspect, the respondent, after giving due consideration to the claim of the petitioner, has rightly directed him to approach the Competent Civil Court rejecting the application of the petitioner, that too after conducting appropriate enquiry through the Revenue Inspector concerned and such refusal cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. As the respondent, on the basis of the report from the Revenue Inspector concerned, concluded that the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner could not be ascertained, it is not for this Court to interfere with such a decision taken by the respondent. I do not find any arbitrariness or irrationality in the decision of the respondent. Even assuming, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order, it is only a futile exercise, in which case, the petitioner would get a mere hearing and it is going to be an empty formality, which will not be productive, in view of the laches on his part. So, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the respondent is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. It is open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court having jurisdiction with necessary application for issuance of legal heir certificate.