Authorities are duty bound to issue legal heir certificates for Class-II legal heirs in accordance with the mode of succession specified in the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

1. The impugned order passed by the second respondent as to whether the respondents are justified in taking into consideration issuance of legal heir certificate for Class-II heir came up for consideration by this court and this Court had an earlier occasion to deal with an identical issue in W.P. (MD) No. 11721 of 2018, on 31.07.2018 and the relevant portion reads as follows:-

"2. Before analyzing the validity of the impugned order, it would appropriate to trace the powers of the second respondent in refusing to issue a Legal heir-ship Certificate to the Class-II legal heirs. There is no provision under the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, or any other Act or Rules, empowering the Revenue Authorities to issue a Legal heir-ship Certificate. In the year 1981, a one man committee in District Revenue Administration suggested delegation of powers to the Tahsildar/Deputy Tahsildar for issuance of a Legal heir-ship Certificate and while accepting the recommendation, the Revenue Department in G.O. (Ms) No. 2906, dated 04.11.1981, had empowered the jurisdictional Tahsildar/Deputy Tahsildar to issue Legal heir-ship certificate. Subsequently, by Letter (Rt.) No. 1534, dated 28.11.1991 issued by the Revenue Department, certain conditions were imposed for issuance of Legal heir-ship Certificate, wherein one of the conditions was that the Tahsildar should refrain from issuing the legal heir-ship Certificate to Class-II legal heirs with a further direction to advise the applicant to approach the Civil Court seeking for remedy. Certain other guidelines were also appended to the said letter dated 28.11.1991.

3. It is submitted that in view of the Letter (Rt.) No. 1534, dated 28.11.1991, the authorities had been refusing to issue Legal heirs Certificate for Class-II legal heirs and advising them to approach the Civil Court. The impugned order is one such order relying upon Letter (Rt.) No. 1534, dated 28.11.1991.

4. Subsequently, this Court, in various orders passed in writ petitions, have been deprecating the practice of the Tahsildars in refusing to issue the certificate for class-II legal heirs. The orders passed in some writ petitions are extracted hereunder:-

(i) In M. Arumugam and Others vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai and Another, CDJ 2013 MHC 6017, it has been held as follows:-

9. The petitioners are claiming themselves to be class II heirs. The Tahsildar pleads his inability to consider the case, as according to him, it would be very difficult to collect the details of the class II heirs. I am not inclined to accept the said submission.

10. The Revenue Department is having lower level officers, who are familiar with the people living in the concerned Village. There are revenue officers under the Tahsildar. There are also village officers functioning in the villages and they would be in a position to know the members of the family. The village Administrative Officer is expected to know each and every family of the village. He cannot plead ignorance about the relationship. The village Administrative Officer is the Revenue Coordinating Officer of the Revenue Department. The Village Administrative Officer must keep a close watch on the village and he should update his information. The problem of issuing a legal heir certificate to class II heirs could be resolves, in case a workable method is adopted by the revenue authorities. Since enquiry has to be made, the Tahsildar can direct the parties to produce birth certificates indicating the relationship. The Tahsildar can also conduct an enquiry in the village level through the Village Administrative Officer. In case, at a later point of time, it is turned out to be a false claim, it is open to the Tahsildar to can the certificate and even criminal action can be taken. The difficulty to identify the members of the class II heirs cannot be a reason to reject the request for issuance of legal heir certificates. Therefore I am of the view that the first respondent was not justified in pa