Point of Law: procedure for grant of heirship certificate shall be consistent, but the same shall not result in injustice to the parties

JUDGMENT :

The question falls for consideration in this matter is whether the competent authority for grant of heirship certificate sought by the petitioner is justified in insisting copy of the First Information Report lodged in connection with the missing of the father of the petitioner for granting the said certificate excluding the name of her father.

2. The mother of the petitioner died on 14.02.2013. It is stated by the petitioner that her father Thankappan had left the company of her mother and the petitioner, about 30 years ago and his whereabouts are not known to them thereafter. It is stated that earlier also, the father of the petitioner had left the company of her mother and came back after one and a half years, and it is in the said circumstances that the mother of the petitioner did not lodge any complaint with the police in connection with the missing of her father, expecting that he would come back. Since the whereabouts of the father of the petitioner is not known for the last more than 30 years, on the death of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner preferred an application for heirship certificate. The case of the petitioner is that since the deceased does not have any blood relatives other than the petitioner, and since the whereabouts of her father is not known for the last more than 30 years, it has to be certified by the competent authority that the petitioner is the sole heir of her deceased mother. In the enquiry conducted pursuant to the said application, it was revealed to the competent authority that the petitioner and her father are the only heirs of the deceased and that the whereabouts of her father is not known for the last more than 30 years. Nevertheless, it is stated that the competent authority, namely the first respondent has issued Ext.P11 communication to the concerned Village Officer to require the petitioner to re-submit the application with a copy of the First Information Report lodged in connection with the missing of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 communication. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that since the mother of the petitioner did not lodge any complaint in connection with the missing of the father of the petitioner having regard to his previous conduct, the petitioner is unable to obtain heirship certificate on account of the insistence of the copy of the First Information Report by the authorities. It is also the case of the petitioner that the insistence of the document aforesaid, in the facts and circumstances of the case is unreasonable, arbitrary and unjust. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that it was revealed in the enquiry conducted by the Village Officer that the whereabouts of the father of the petitioner is not known for the last more than 30 years, and when the materials available before the competent authority indicates that if a person has not been heard of for more than seven years by those who would have naturally heard of him if he had been alive, the competent authority is bound to presume, in the light of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act that he is dead and issue heirship certificate without including his name in the certificate. It was contended by the learned counsel that there is no legal basis for insisting copy of the First Information Report lodged in connection with the missing of persons invariably in all cases.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that a copy of the First Information Report lodged in connection with the missing of persons is insisted while issuing heirship certificate to maintain consistency in the procedure for grant of heirship certificate and the insistence of the said document cannot, therefore, be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary or unjus