O R D E R

Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Government Counsel, takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.

2.This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated

02.09.2021 passed by the second respondent and to direct the second respondent to issue legal heirship certificate indicating the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 6 as legal heirs of the deceased D.Yasodha.

3.It is the case of the petitioner that one D.Yasodha, W/o.Damodaran and sister of one Swarnamuthu @ Muthu, was a renowned person in politics. She has no issues, out of wedlock. She died intestate on 27.12.2020 leaving behind no class I legal heir, other than the heirs and successors of the said Swarnamuthu. Her parents predeceased her. According to the petitioner, she and the respondents 3 to 6 are the children of the said Swarnamuthu and class II legal heirs of the deceased D.Yasodha. Hence, she made an application on 21.06.2021 to the second respondent requesting to issue legal heirship certificate of the deceased. However, by order dated 02.09.2021, the said application was rejected, stating that there is no direct legal heir for the deceased; the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 6 are only the class II legal heirs; and as per circular No.9/2019 in Rc.No.RA.5(3)/180/2017 dated 24.09.2019 issued by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, the Tahsildar has no power to issue class II legal heir certificate. Therefore, this writ petition.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court had passed an order in WP (MD) No. 15901 of 2018 [N.R.Raja and Ors. Vs. the Tahsildar, Madurai South] dated 03.08.2018, wherein, it directed the respondent therein to issue legal heir certificate to the Class II legal heirs also. The relevant portion of the said order is usefully extracted below:

"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 Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, or any other Act or Rules, empowering the Revenue Authorities to issue a Legal heirship 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 heirship 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 heirship Certificate. Subsequently, by Letter (Rt) No.1534, dated 28.11.1991 issued by the Revenue Department, certain conditions were imposed for issuance of Legal heirship Certificate, wherein one of the conditions was that the Tahsildar should refrain from issuing the Legal heirship 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 & Others vs.

The Tahsildar, Madurai South, Madurai and another reported in CDJ 2013 MHC 601