Judgment : 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the third respondent dated 04.12.2013, by which the petitioner's request to include her name in the legal heirship certificate was rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Rajarajan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the daughter of one Late Mr. Kalimuthu. Since the ancestral property has not been partitioned between her father and his brother Subbiah, issuance of legal heirship certificate is essential for the petitioner for partition and other transactions over the property. In this situation, by way of the court's direction, the petitioner's brothers were issued legal heirship certificate, excluding the petitioner's name. After knowing that, the petitioner approached the third respondent and submitted an application in the month of October, 2013, for inclusion of her name in the legal heirship certificate, dated 20.02.2006. But the third respondent refused to do the same. After that, the Village Administrative Officer of Kandadevi Village and Revenue Inspector of Kandadevi Pirka, Devakottai Taluk have also given a report stating that the petitioner is the daughter of Late.Kalimuthu and they also recommended for inclusion of the petitioner's name in the legal heirship certificate, dated 20.02.2006. Armed with the report submitted by the revenue officials, the petitioner once again approached the third respondent. But, the third respondent, by the impugned order, dated 04.12.2013, rejected the petitioner's claim. 4. A perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the third respondent has not adverted to any of the points/contentions submitted by the petitioner, nor referred to the report of the revenue officials, before passing the impugned order. However, in the impugned order, there is a categorical finding that the petitioner is the daughter of Late.Kalimuthu. Before issuing the impugned order, enquiry was not conducted and the petitioner was not given any opportunity of personal hearing. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the third respondent is illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the third respondent, 04.12.2013, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration. 5. In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the third respondent, 04.12.2013, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration. The third respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as the persons, whose names find place in the legal heirship certificate issued on 20.02.2006. The third respondent shall also consider the report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector of Kanadadevi Village and pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.