JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 28.06.2017 in Na.Ka.No.A2/3229/17 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to issue legal heirship certificate declaring the petitioners as legal heirs of their sister late Dr. M.V.Supriya.)

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of rejection dated 28.06.2017 passed by the first respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioners for issuance of legal heir certificate on the ground that they are not Class I legal heir but Class II legal heir of the deceased Dr. M.V. Supriya.

2. According to the petitioners, they are the sisters of the deceased Dr.M.V. Supriya who died as a spinster. It is stated that the petitioners father P.T.G. Menon, who was employed as Assistant Collector of Customs died in the year 2003 and their mother also died in the year 2014. As the deceased Dr.M.V. Supriya died as a spinster, the petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs entitled to succeed her estate. It is stated that Dr. M.V.Supriya was employed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Management Studies in Anna University and she died on 02.05.2017 at the age of 53 years after a brief illness due to Cancer. On her death, the petitioners have submitted an application dated 15.06.2017 seeking to issue legal heir certificate. On the basis of such application, the first respondent conducted an enquiry, but by the order dated 28.06.2017, rejected their application on the ground that the petitioners are not the direct legal heir of the deceased Dr. M.V. Supriya, but they are Class II heir.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in similar circumstances in WP (MD) No. 15901 of 2018 [N.R.Raja and others v. the Tahsildar, Madurai South] by order dated 03.08.2018, this Court directed the respondent therein to grant legal heir certificate to class II legal heirs also. The relevant passage of the said order is usefully extracted below:

“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 & Others vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai South, Madurai and another reported in 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 Co-ordinating 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 ide