JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the rejection order passed on the application of the petitioner for issuance of legal heir certificate of her brother Ydavakrishnan alias C.V.Gokulakrishnan son of Late A.Venkatasamy Naidu in Na.Ka.7346/2021/A5, dated 13.12.2021 passed by the second respondent and to quash the same and to direct the second respondent to issue legal heir certificate to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the order refusing to grant legal heirship certificate on the ground that with respect to class-II heir, the Tahsildar, is not competent to grant legal heirship certificate. In this connection, a reliance is placed on a circular issued by the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai. Since a decision will have to be made with respect to the said circular, it is only appropriate that the said official, namely, the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, is suo motu impleaded as respondent in the Writ Petition. The Registry may carry out necessary amendments in the cause title to the Writ Petition before issuing the order copy.

2. The petitioner seeks legal heirship certificate of her brother, who died a bachelor.

3. The issues raised in the Writ Petition have come to the consideration of the Courts earlier and there have been instances where, learned Single Judges have opined that if Class-II legal heirs approach the revenue authorities/Tahsildar for issuing legal heirship certificate and when there are no rival claimants or anybody contesting the status of the applicant, then the Tahsildar after making due enquiry, must grant legal heirship certificate. It had been stated that it is reasonably expected that a Tahsildar or a Village Administrative Officer would know the particular details of the families residing in the village and therefore, an obligation is cast on such officers to examine the particulars stated in the application seeking legal heirship certificate and if it is found to be correct and true, the revenue officials can proceed further to issue legal heirship certificate.

4. It was opined that there was no necessity to refer those parties to the Civil Court, particularly, when there are no rival claimants. Institution of a suit would only be a cumbersome procedure and as a matter of fact, since there are no rival claimants, it would only be an exercise for the sake of it as there would no defendant questioning the status of the plaintiff seeking legal heirship certificate. The trial itself would only be perfunctory in nature, as the defendant/Tahsildar would only be a formal party and the Court will have to go with the statement made by the plaintiff. It was therefore, held by learned Single Judges of this Court that instead of driving the parties to the Civil Court, the Tahsildar can very well examine the issue and grant legal heirship certificate.

5. In this connections, the following judgments can be referred to:

(i) In W.P(MD)No.15901 of 2018 [N.R.Raja and others Vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai South], by its order dated 03.08.2018, this Court had directed the respondent therein to grant legal heir certificate to Class – II legal heirs also. In the said decision, the issue with respect to issuance of legal heir certificate to Class – II legal heir had been elaborately dealt with. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“2. 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 heirship Certificate to the Class-II legal heirs. There is no provision under the