There is no time limit for obtaining a Legal Heirship Certificate, and inaction or laches cannot be a ground for rejection.

Heard both sides.

2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents.

4. According to the petitioner, his grandfather, Maruthan Samban was married to Mrs. Solaiammal and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two sons viz., 1. M. Kodanki and 2. M. Mookkan (the petitioner's father) and one daughter viz., Mrs. Peruchi Ammal (daughter). It comes to be known that the petitioner's grandfather Maruthan Samban died on 10.05.1957. Later, his wife Solaiammal also died. After their death, their legal heirs jointly enjoyed the entire properties including the landed property situate in Kadavoor Kallampatti, Chathirapatti and Madurai North Taluk, Madurai without any partition.

5. The categorical plea taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the legal heirs of the aforesaid Maruthan Samban viz., Kodanki died on 08.07.1990 and the petitioner's father Mookkan expired on 07.09.1994 and his paternal aunt viz., Peruchi Ammal died on 12.01.2008, leaving the respective legal heirs. Furthermore, all the legal heirs of the aforesaid three persons, viz., Kodanki, Mookkan and Peruchi Ammal are in joint possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid properties of Maruthan Samban without any partition. Apart from that, the chitta for the said property stands in the name of Maruthan Samban. As a matter of fact, all the legal heirs of the aforesaid three, had decided to partition the ancestral property and in order to change patta in their names, the Revenue Authority is in need of Legal Heirship Certificate for their ancestor 'Maruthan Samban'.

6. The version of the petitioner before this Court is that he had approached the Tahsildar, Madurai East, Madurai, praying for issuance of Legal Heirship Certificate of Maruthan Samban, by means of his representation dated 18.05.2015 and in fact, the second respondent refused to issue Legal Heir Certificate on two grounds viz., i) The said Maruthan Samban died 59 years back and (ii) None of the direct legal heirs of the said Maruthan Samban are alive, as per memo dated 26.05.2016.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the petitioner's father Mookkan and his paternal aunt Mrs. Peruchi Ammal produced the Legal Heirship Certificate of Mookkan and Kodangi and all the legal heirs of the Maruthan Samban are residing only in Keelakallanthiri Village and died in the very same village. Indeed, the second respondent/Tahdildar, Madurai East had issued the Legal Heirship Certificate to the petitioner's father and his paternal aunt. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner assailing the memo dated 26.05.2016 of the second respondent emphatically submits that the impugned order of the second respondent suffers from non-application of mind and in fact, 'the delay' is not a factor for refusing to issue the Legal Heir Certificate.

8. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the order of this Court dated 24.11.2010 in W.P.(MD).No.13434 of 2010, between S. Poovalingam Vs Tahdildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai (vide Indian Kanoon- http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1555489/), whereby and whereunder, it is observed and held as follows:-

“This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent, on 07.10.2010, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the issuance of a legal heir certificate, on the ground that the request had been made after the period of 14 years, after the death of one Senbagathevar, the father of the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has not been in a position to show the provision of law or the Government Order, which states that the legal heir certificate should not be issued beyond a certain period.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court, an order passed, on 21.04.2007, in W.P. (MD) No. 3772 of 2007, wherein, this Court had set aside a similar proceedings and had directed the