w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

R. Jayalakshmi & Others v/s The District Collector, Chennai & Another

    W.P. No. 18651 of 2022 & W.M.P. No.17982, 17984, 17985, 17987 of 2022
    Decided On, 30 August 2022
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    For the Petitioners: D. Saikumaran, Advocate. For the Respondents: T. Seenivasan, Special Government Pleader.

Judgment Text
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings vide dated 14.03.2022 Transaction reference No.TNTACCHN00330800 cancelling the 1st petitioner's application No.TN-7202203142580 for obtaining legal heirship certificate and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to hold an enquiry and issue Legal Heirship Certificate in accordance with law in favour of the 1st and 3rd petitioners.)

1. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. Mr.T. Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent, rejecting the 1st petitioner's application seeking for issuance of Legal Heirship certificate for the deceased R.Rajagopal on the ground that the 2nd petitioner is the 2nd wife of the deceased.

4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as according to them, they have not been afforded a fair hearing by the 2nd respondent before rejecting the 1st petitioner's application.

5. Heard Mr.D. Saikumaran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.T. Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners now fairly submits on instructions that the 1st petitioner and the 3rd petitioner are alone the only legal heirs of the deceased R.Rajagopal and therefore the 2nd petitioner's name can be excluded in the Legal Heirship certificate. The said statement is recorded.

7. As seen from the impugned order, the only ground for rejection of the 1st petitioner's application is that the 2nd petitioner is the second wife of the deceased R.Rajagopal. Therefore, the matter will have to be remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law in view of the fact that the petitioners themselves have admitted that it is only the 1st and 3rd petitioners, who are alone entitled to be declared as legal heirs for the deceased R.Rajagopal.

8. It is also further seen from the impugned order that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the principles of natural justice has been violated.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order, dated 14.03.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair hearing to the petitioners and any other necessary party whom the 2nd respondent deems fit to enquire.

10. However, it is made clear that the 1st and 3rd petitioners will have to submit a fresh online application with the 2nd respondent to enable the 2nd respondent to pass final orders pursuant to the directions issued by this C

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ourt, today. 11. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass final orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the online application to be submitted by the 1st and 3rd petitioners. 12. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.