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


R. Thenmozhi v/s The Collector, Villupuram & Others

    W.P. No. 16551 of 2022
    Decided On, 30 August 2022
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
    For the Petitioner: R. Hemalatha, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, Mr. K.H. Ravikumar, Government Advocate, R4 & R5, B. Gurunathan, Advocate.


Judgment Text
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct an enquiry with regards to the Legal Heir Certificate dated 18.09.1999, No.Pa.Mu(A4) No.8928/99 issued by the Tahsildar, Tindivanam and may issue a fresh Legal Heir certificate by including the petitioner's name as one of the Legal Heir of her father V.Ranganathan by disposing the written representation made by the petitioner on 24.05.2022.)

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

2. Mr.K.H. Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.B.Gurunathan, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondents 4 and 5.

3. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct an enquiry with regard to the Legal Heir Certificate dated 18.09.1999 in No.Pa.Mu(A4) No.8928/99 issued by the 3rd respondent and for issuance of fresh Legal Heirship certificate by including the petitioner's name as one of the Legal Heir of her father V.Ranganathan, based on her representation dated 24.05.2022.

4. The petitioner is the daughter of the deceased V.Ranganathan. According to the petitioner, the Legal Heirship certificate of the deceased V.Ranganathan has been issued on 18.09.1999 by the 3rd respondent by excluding her name as one of the legal heirs of the deceased V.Ranganathan. The 4th respondent is the wife and the 5th respondent is the son of the deceased respectively. Since the petitioner has been excluded as one of the Class – I legal heirs for the deceased V.Ranganathan under the said Legal Heirship certificate, she has filed this writ petition.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th and 5th respondents, who are the wife and the son of the deceased respectively admitting that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased V.Ranganathan. However, on the ground of laches they would contend that the petitioner is not entitled to be included as one of the Class-I legal heirs for the deceased V.Ranganathan

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents submits that since there is a delay in seeking for cancellation, the 2nd and 3rd respondents do not have the power to exercise jurisdiction and if at all only the 1st respondent can exercise jurisdiction. The said statement is recorded.

7. Heard Ms.R. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.H. Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.B.Gurunathan, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.

8. Being an admitted fact that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased V.Ranganathan she is definitely a Class – I Legal Heir. Her name ought to have been included in the said Legal Heirship Certificate but only due to the reasons that she has sought for her name inclusion belatedly, the petitioner's representation dated 24.05.2022 has not been considered, till date.

9. Admittedly, the request made by the petitioner seeking for her inclusion in the Legal Heirship Certificate for the deceased V.Ranganathan is presently under consideration by the 1st respondent, the District Collector.

10. No prejudice would be caused to the 1st respondent, if the petitioner's representation seeking for inclusion of her name as one of the legal heirs of the deceased V.Ranganathan is considered on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 and 5 and any other necessary party, whom the 1st respondent deems fit to enquire.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would now submit that the petitioner will give a fresh representation to the 1st respondent. The said statement is recorded.

12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 1st respondent seeking for inclusion of her name as one of the legal heirs of the deceased V.Ranganathan, within a period of one week

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said representation, the 1st respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 and 5 and any other necessary party, whom the 1st respondent deems fit to enquire. 13. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
O R