Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2304 (MAD)

Vellaichamy v. District Collector, Tirunelveli

2018-07-31

M.S.RAMESH

body2018
ORDER : 1. The petitioner's maternal uncle, namely, Periyamadasamykonar, died on 09.11.2008. The said Periyamadasamykonar's wife had pre-deceased him and he had no children. The petitioner herein is surviving Class-II legal heir of Periyamadasamykonar. In this connection, he had made an application to the second respondent herein, on 12.08.2016, seeking for Legal heir-ship Certificate and by an order dated 25.08.2016 in Mu.Mu.Aal/ 4856/2016, the second respondent rejected the petitioner's application, on the ground that he was not the direct heir of the deceased and therefore, directed him to approach the Civil Court seeking for necessary relief. Challenging the said order dated 25.08.2016, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Before analyzing the validity of the impugned order, it would appropriate to trace the powers of the second respondent in refusing to issue a Legal heir-ship Certificate to the Class-II legal heirs. There is no provision under the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, or any other Act or Rules, empowering the Revenue Authorities to issue a Legal heir-ship Certificate. In the year 1981, a one man committee in District Revenue Administration suggested delegation of powers to the Tahsildar/Deputy Tahsildar for issuance of a Legal heir-ship Certificate and while accepting the recommendation, the Revenue Department in G.O. (Ms) No. 2906, dated 04.11.1981, had empowered the jurisdictional Tahsildar/Deputy Tahsildar to issue Legal heir-ship Certificate. Subsequently, by Letter (Rt) No. 1534, dated 28.11.1991 issued by the Revenue Department, certain conditions were imposed for issuance of Legal heir-ship Certificate, wherein one of the conditions was that the Tahsildar should refrain from issuing the Legal heir-ship Certificate to Class-II legal heirs with a further direction to advise the applicant to approach the Civil Court seeking for remedy. Certain other guidelines were also appended to the said letter dated 28.11.1991. 3. It is submitted that in view of the Letter (Rt) No. 1534, dated 28.11.1991, the authorities had been refusing to issue Legal heirs Certificate for Class-II legal heirs and advising them to approach the Civil Court. The impugned order is one such order relying upon Letter (Rt) No. 1534, dated 28.11.1991. 4. Subsequently, this Court, in various orders passed in writ petitions, have been deprecating the practice of the Tahsildars in refusing to issue the certificate for class-II legal heirs. The impugned order is one such order relying upon Letter (Rt) No. 1534, dated 28.11.1991. 4. Subsequently, this Court, in various orders passed in writ petitions, have been deprecating the practice of the Tahsildars in refusing to issue the certificate for class-II legal heirs. The orders passed in some writ petitions are extracted hereunder:- (i) In M. Arumugam and Others vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai District and Another, CDJ 2013 MHC 6017, it has been held as follows:- 9. The petitioners are claiming themselves to be class II heirs. The Tahsildar pleads his inability to consider the case, as according to him, it would be very difficult to collect the details of the class II heirs. I am not inclined to accept the said submission. 10. The Revenue Department is having lower level officers, who are familiar with the people living in the concerned Village. There are revenue officers under the Tahsildar. There are also village officers functioning in the villages and they would be in a position to know the members of the family. The village Administrative Officer is expected to know each and every family of the village. He cannot plead ignorance about the relationship. The village Administrative Officer is the Revenue Coordinating Officer of the Revenue Department. The Village Administrative Officer must keep a close watch on the village and he should update his information. The problem of issuing a legal heir certificate to class II heirs could be resolves, in case a workable method is adopted by the revenue authorities. Since enquiry has to be made, the Tahsildar can direct the parties to produce birth certificates indicating the relationship. The Tahsildar can also conduct an enquiry in the village level through the Village Administrative Officer. In case, at a later point of time, it is turned out to be a false claim, it is open to the Tahsildar to can the certificate and even criminal action can be taken. The difficulty to identify the members of the class II heirs cannot be a reason to reject the request for issuance of legal heir certificates. Therefore I am of the view that the first respondent was not justified in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. The difficulty to identify the members of the class II heirs cannot be a reason to reject the request for issuance of legal heir certificates. Therefore I am of the view that the first respondent was not justified in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. (ii) In W.P. (MD) No. 37214 of 2015, T.S. Renuka Devi Rep by her guardian and next fried K. Swaminathan vs. The Tahsildar, Mambalam, Chennai, it has been observed as under:- 5. Admittedly, Class I heirs of the said G. Parvathi predeceased her. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner is her only surviving legal heir. Therefore, as per the Schedule appended to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioner being Class II legal heir, is entitled to succeed the property left out by the said Parvathi, if no other direct legal heir is available. In the enquiry, the respondent has also admitted the same, but he refused to issue a certificate to the petitioner. In my considered view, the order so passed by the respondent is not sustainable and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 05.12.2013 passed by the respondent is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh application along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such submission, the respondent is directed to conduct enquiry by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (iii) In W.P. (MD) No. 5586 of 2017, R. Lokesh Kannan vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and Another, it has been held as follows:- 5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his brother died as a bachelor and except the petitioner, there are no legal heirs, since his parents have already passed away. In the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has held that if Clause-I heirs are not live, Clause-II heirs are entitled to get the legal heir-ship certificate from the Competent Authority. Hence the application of the petitioner cannot be rejected merely on the ground that there is no direct legal heir of the deceased. 6. In the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has held that if Clause-I heirs are not live, Clause-II heirs are entitled to get the legal heir-ship certificate from the Competent Authority. Hence the application of the petitioner cannot be rejected merely on the ground that there is no direct legal heir of the deceased. 6. In view of the above facts, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the second respondent enclosing this order copy and the orders passed in the writ petition referred above, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. On such receipt, the second respondent shall consider the petitioner's application and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, in the light of the orders passed by this Court as stated supra within a period of six weeks thereafter. 5. Sections 8 and 9 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, stipulate the mode of succession in expressive terms. As such, the respondents will not be justified in refusing the issuance of Legal heir-ship Certificate in favour of Class-II legal heirs, in the absence of Class-I legal heirs. When the law stipulates the mode of succession, the second respondent is duty bound to consider the same and conduct proper enquiry, in line with the order of the descendants, specified under the Succession Act or any other personal law for that matter. 6. When the law specifies the mode of succession, there is no impediment on the part of the Tahsildar to issue Legal heir-ship certificate as prescribed in the mode of succession. Nevertheless, in cases, where there are serious rival claims for the heir-ships, which cannot be considered, on the basis of the statement of the claimants and which necessarily requires to be established through proper oral and documentary evidences, it would be appropriate, to refer such parties to the Civil Court of law. Such an exercise however should be made only when the authority is satisfied that there is a rival claim for heir-ships or the relationship of the heirs with the deceased is disputed. In all other cases, the authorities are bound to issue Legal heir-ship Certificate for the Class-II legal heirs also. Such an exercise however should be made only when the authority is satisfied that there is a rival claim for heir-ships or the relationship of the heirs with the deceased is disputed. In all other cases, the authorities are bound to issue Legal heir-ship Certificate for the Class-II legal heirs also. It is needless to point out that the certificates thus issued should be preceded by a proper enquiry by the Revenue Authorities. 7. In the instant case, the respondents are not justified in denying the legal heir-ship certificate of late Periyamadasamykonar only on the ground that he did not have direct heirs. It is rather unfortunate that even inspite of the several orders of this Court directing the Tahsildar/Deputy Tahsildar to issue Legal heir-ship Certificate for the Class-II heirs also, the respondents have chosen to rely upon an outdated letter of the year 1991 and has been rejecting such applications. 8. In the result, the impugned order dated 25.08.2016 is set aside and consequently, the respondents herein are directed to conduct a proper enquiry and issue Legal heir-ship Certificate of Late Periyamadasamykonar to the petitioner, if he is otherwise entitled to. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.