Madras High Court
J.Padmanabhan vs The Secretary To The Government Of Tamil ... on 30 March, 2016
Author: R. Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.03.2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.No.32792 of 2015 J.Padmanabhan ... Petitioner Vs. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Revenue Department Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Tahsildar Madavaram, Madavaram Taluk, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the letter O.Mu.No.4046/2015/A3 dated 30.06.2015 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to issue the legal heir certificate of the petitioner's wife. For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.O.Chidambaram For respondents : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP. O R D E R
The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition seeking for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the letter O.Mu.No.4046/2015/A3 dated 30.06.2015 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to issue the legal heir certificate of the petitioner's wife.
2.The petitioner worked in Tamil Nadu Police Service and retired from service on 30.09.1996. The petitioner's wife by name P.Vasantha died on 02.02.1993 at Government General Hospital, Chennai. The death of the petitioner's wife was registered and death certificate was also issued by the Corporation of Madras. The petitioner's wife P.Vasantha left behind the petitioner as only legal heir as there was no issues for them. Due to preoccupation with his work, the petitioner was not in a position to apply for legal heir certificate of his wife late P.Vasantha, immediately after her death.
3.The said P.Vasantha had some immovable property, now the petitioner has decided to deal with the said property, for which the petitioner applied for the legal heir certificate before the second respondent. The second respondent vide letter dated 30.06.2015, replied stating that the death of P.Vasantha took place 22years before i.e, on 02.02.1993, it is not possible for them to issue legal heirship certificate and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court for obtaining legal heir certificate. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ present writ petition.
4.Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by relying upon the decision rendered by this Court in WP.(MD).No.14956 of 2013 etc batch, dated 25.09.2013, in the case of C.Dhamayanthi V. The District Collector, Madurai District and two others, submitted that in the said order by considering the Circular issued by Special Commissioner and Secretary dated 28.11.1991, in Letter (Nilai) No.4534, it was held that there is no limitation for making application for getting Legal Heirship Certificate. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the issue for issuance of legal heirship certificate has been clearly settled by this Court saying that there is no limitation for making application to obtain legal heirship certificate, the concerned Tahsildar is bound to issue the same.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the order of the learned single judge made in WP.(MD).No.16233 of 2014 dated 25.09.2014 Johnson V. The District Collector, Nagercoil and another, the relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows :-
4.Identical impugned orders were subject matters before this Court in a batch of writ petition in W.P.(MD) Nos.14956 of 2013 batch. This Court, vide order dated 25.09.2013, disposed of the writ petitions with the following observations:
5. In fact, this Court in the said W.P.(MD) No.11709 of 2009, by order dated 16.11.2009, made it further clear that there is no limitation for seeking the relief of Legal Heirship Certificate. On this basis, the rejection of all the requests on the ground of limitation, was considered by this Court and hence, it is not proper on the part of the Tahsildar again to reject any application filed by the parties on the ground of delay. Besides a Circular issued by the Special Commissioner and Secretary, dated 28.11.1991, in Letter (Nilai) No.4534 also makes the position very clear that there is no limitation for making the application for getting the Legal Heirship Certificate. It is pertinent to extract herein a relevant portion of the said circular as follows:-
"3/ neuo thhpRjhuh;fSf;F thhpRr; rhd;wpjH; ntz;Lgth; ,we;Jnghdthpd; ,wg;g[r; rhd;wpjiH ,izj;J. Kj;jpiuf; fl;lztpy;iy xl;o rk;ge;jg;gl;l tl;lhrpaUf;F kD bra;a ntz;Lk;/ ,t;thW bgwg;gLk; kD rk;ge;jg;gl;l tUtha; Ma;thsUf;F chpa tprhuizf;fhf mDg;gg;glntz;Lk;/ 4/ rk;ge;jg;gl;l tUtha; Ma;th; kw;Wk; fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; Mfpnahh; tl;lhrpah; mYtyfj;jpypUe;J kD tug; bgw;wt[ld; rk;ge;jg;gl;l kDjhuh; trpf;Fkplj;jpw;Fr; brd;W Kjypy; kDjhuiua[k; mth; jk; FLk;gj;jpy; cs;s midtiua[k;. gpd;dh; mtuJ cwtpdh;fs; mz;il tPl;lhh; kw;Wk; bghJ kf;fs; Mfpnahiua[k; ed;F tprhuiz bra;J. mth;fsplkpUe;J thf;FK:yk; bgw;Wf; bfhs;s ntz;Lk;/ FLk;g ml;il. ,we;J nghdtUf;Fr; brhe;jkhd brhj;Jf;fs; caph;. jpUkzg; gj;jphpif kw;Wk; mtuhy; tpl;Lr; bry;yg;gl;l Vida Mtz';fs; Kjyhd midj;ija[k; ed;F ghprPyid bra;J ,we;J nghdthpd; thhpRjhuh;fs; ahh; ahh; vd;gija[k; mjw;fhd tptu';fisa[k; mwpf;ifahfj; bjhFj;J tl;lhl;rpaUf;F mDg;gntz;Lk;/ 5/ tUtha; Ma;thshpd; mwpf;if fpilf;fg; bgw;wt[ld; tl;lhl;rpah; mjid ed;F ghprPyid bra;antz;Lk;/ ghprPyidf;Fg; gpd; ,we;Jnghdthpd; thhpRjhuh;fs; ahh;. ahh; vd;gij jPh;f;fkhf cWjp bra;a ntz;Lk;/ re;njfg;gLk; ,d';fspy;. rk;ge;jg;gl;l kDjhuiunah my;yJ mtuJ FLk;gj;jpdh;/cwtpdh; my;yJ mt;t{iur; nrh;e;j bghJ kf;fs; vtiunaDk;. my;yJ ntW Mtz';fs; vijnaDk; nfl;Lg; bgw;nwh. tl;lhrpah; Kot[ bra;ayhk;.
6/ ,we;Jnghd eghpd; thhpRjhuh;fs; ahh; ahh; vd;gij re;njfj;jpw;fplkpd;wp Kot[ bra;j gpd; fPH;fhZk; gotj;jpy; thhpRr; rhd;wpjH; tH';fg;gl ntz;Lk;/"
A mere reading of the above circular issued by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government mandates every Tahsildar to issue to the Legal Heirship Certificate after obtaining proper report from the Subordinate Officers. Therefore, when the issue for issuance of Legal Heirship Certificate has been clearly settled by this Court saying that there is no limitation for making application for obtaining Legal Heirship Certificate, the concerned Tahsildar cannot shirk their responsibilities by simply directing the parties to approach the Court.
6. Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the District Revenue Officers of Madurai, Dindigul, Virudhunagar and Sivagangai, after taking instructions from them made a statement before this Court that hereinafter the District Revenue Officers would give written instructions to all the Tahsildars and also other Revenue Officers, viz., the Revenue Inspectors and Village Administrative Officers, to dispose of the applications seeking issuance of Legal Heirship Certificate, within a maximum time of four weeks, but in deserving cases, the Officers would be directed to issue the same at the earliest possible time, preferably within a week. Also, he further submitted that all the petitioners, who have come to this Court challenging the correctness of the impugned proceedings issued by the various Tahsildars, may be asked to make a fresh application to the Tahsildar concerned along with the necessary documents, viz., Death Certificate, Xerox copy of the Ration Card or Voters Identity Card, attested by Notary Public for expeditious issuance of the Legal Heirship Certificate.
7. Accepting the said statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, the petitioners are directed to make a fresh application within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with necessary documents mentioned above and on receiving such applications from the petitioners, the concerned Tahsildar, without looking into the limitation, shall take all reasonable efforts to issue Legal Heirship Certificates to the concerned parties at the earliest possible time as per the Letter (Nilai) No.4534, dated 28.11.1991, not exceeding in any event more than four weeks thereafter and the District Revenue Officers concerned are also hereby directed to issue suitable written instructions to all the Tahsildars. On receipt of this order, the learned Additional Advocate General is directed to forward a copy of this order to all the District Revenue Officers to follow the directions issued by this Court regarding issuance of Legal Heirship Certificate.
6.Following the same, this Court directs the petitioner to submit fresh representation alongwith the copy of this order before the second respondent, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks, thereon, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to other necessary parties, if any, without going into the limitation aspect and issue legal heirship certificate to the petitioner, at the earliest. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.
7.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
30.03.2016 tsh Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Tahsildar, Madavaram, Madavaram Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
R. SUBBIAH, J.
tsh W.P.No.32792 of 2015 30.03.2016.