IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 24174 OF 2024 PETITIONERS:

1 VINUTHA.H, AGED 68 YEARS W/O. KESHAVA KOTTEYAR, NO.254, 5 TH MAIN ROAD, CANARA BANK COLONY, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE NORTH, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-, PIN -

560072

2 KISHORE.H, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. LATE H.SHANTHARAM, NO. 152, 3 RD MAIN ROAD, 4 TH CROSS ROAD, GKW LAYOUT, RAJAGOPALNAGAR, PEENIYA 2 ND STAGE BANGALORE NORTH, PEENIYA SMALL INDUSTRIES, BANGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560058

3 NAMITHA PRASANT RAO, AGED 59 YEARS W/O. PRASANTH RAO, FLAT NO. 12, STERLING APARTMENT, HOLY CROSS ROAD, OPP.SBI ATM IC COLONY, BORIVALI WEST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-, PIN - 400103 BY ADVS.

K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN BALAKRISHNAN M.

CHANDRAKANTH K. ULLAS STEPHY THOMAS RESPONDENTS:

1 THE TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD KASARGOD, PIN - 671315

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD KASARGOD, PIN – 671315 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. B.S. SYAMANTHAK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

W.P.(C)No.24174 of 2024 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 16^th day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the legal heirs of late B.Vijayalakshmi (deceased) and her husband H.Shantharam, who predeceased his wife. After the death of Shantharam, the deceased had shifted her residence to Bangalore. The petitioners and the deceased are the joint owners of the property covered by Ext.P4 tax receipt situated in Hosdurg. The petitioners are paying building tax for the building constructed in the property. On 25.12.2023, 1^st petitioner had submitted an application for a legal heirship certificate of the deceased. Since, there was no response from the respondent, the petitioners made an application under the Right to Information Act. It was then informed that the petitioners’ application for legal heirship certificate was summarily rejected. The petitioners’ application was rejected for the reason that they are not residing within the Hosdurg village, even though the property is situated in the above village. Ext.P7 order is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the writ petition.

2. The 1^st respondent has filed a statement, denying the allegations in the writ petition. He has contended that as the petitioners are not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Village Office, Hosdurg. The statements of the 1^st petitioner and two neighbours could not be recorded. It is only for the said reason that the application was rejected. However, the deceased and the petitioners are the joint owners of the properties in Hosdurg Village. There is no illegality in rejecting the petitioners’ application for legal heirship certificate. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Ext.P4 tax receipt issued by the 2^nd respondent substantiates that the deceased and the petitioners are the co-owners of the properties mentioned in the tax receipt. Ext.P5 building tax receipt shows that a building is constructed in the property covered by Ext.P4, which also belongs to the petitioners and the deceased.

5. The sole reason for rejecting the petitioners'

application for legal heirship certificate is that, the petitioners are not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the 2^nd respondent.

6. In the above context, it is profitable to refer to paragraph 213, 215 and 236 of the Village Manual which reads as follows:-

213. Applicant – (1) In normal circumstances it is mandatory for a person to be an Indian Citizen in order to apply for all kind of certificates in the Revenue Department. However, this stipulation is not applicable for the people who have roots in India, have renounced Indian Citizenship and accepted citizenship elsewhere. Such people can submit applicatio