O R D E R

The petitioner seeks cancellation of the Legal Heir Ship Certificate issued by the second respondent recognising the third respondent as the legal heir of deceased Ponnudurai. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raises several contentions, I do not think it is necessary for me to go into all those, in view of the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court. The Hon’ble Full Bench has after exhaustive analysis of the law relating to issuance of legal heir ship certificates and their binding nature had observed as follows:

“65 To sum up, our answers to the questions formulated in paragraph 10, (supra), are as under:

A. Legal heirship is a status governed by the respective personal law of parties through various statutes. The certificates issued by the Tahsildar amount to nothing more than a relationship certificate reflecting the opinion of the Tahsildar as to the relationship of the applicant and others named therein with the deceased. Consequently, the certificate issued by the Tahsildar does not affect the legal right of any party and has no bearing on the status of a legal heir which is conferred on an individual under his/her personal law.

B. An administrative circular does not have the force of law and does not bind the citizen or the Court. They, however, bind the Tahsildar as a measure of ensuring administrative discipline and securing consistency in decision-making. The discretion of the Tahsildar is circumscribed by these administrative instructions which may be issued, from time to time, by the Commissioner of Land Administration.

C. Consequently, a writ of mandamus under Article

226 of the Constitution will not lie to direct the Tahsildar to issue a legal heirship certificate contrary to the terms of a circular. An exception to the aforesaid principle is where the circular, ex-facie, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness or perversity or runs counter to any provision of law. In such cases, it is open to the Court to ignore the circular and grant such relief(s) as may be permissible in law.

D. In the absence of any conflict with any primary or delegated legislation holding the field, G.O. Ms. No.581 Revenue Department dated 03.04.1987 casts a duty on the Tahsildar to issue a legal heirship certificate as per the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Commissioner of Land Administration. G.O. Ms.No.581 Revenue Department dated 03.04.1987 is undoubtedly a law as it has been issued in exercise of executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, when the Tahsildar keeps the application pending and does not decide on it one way or the other, a writ of mandamus may be issued by the High Court directing the Tahsildar to decide the application in terms of G.O.Ms.No.581 Revenue Department dated 03.04.1987 and the applicable circulars. The decisions in N.Dhanalakshmi (supra) and E. Thirumurthy (supra), to the extent that they hold that the Tahsildar has no power to issue a certificate of this nature, will stand overruled.

E. A legal heirship certificate issued by a Tahsildar cannot be equated to a succession certificate issued by a Court under Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in respect of the debt or securities. In this view of the matter, the High Court, in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not create any new mechanism as stated in the order of reference.

F. The classification of persons as Class-I and Class-II heirs in Circular No.9 of 2019, dated 24.09.2019, and their application to the heirs of a deceased female Hindu or non- Hindu would lead to chaos. We find the entire edifice of the classification in the Circular is founded on a fallacy that the concept of Class-I and Class-II legal heirs which are applicable to the heirs of a deceased Hindu male under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act could be extended across the Board to all religions.

G. Consequently, the Government of Tamil Nadu is directed to issue a fresh Government o