BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Sangaiah ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai Division.

2.The Tahsildar /

Registrar of Births & Deaths, Kalaiyarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent vide O.Mu.A5/4844/25 dated 28.08.2025 and quash the same as illegal and also direct the respondents to issue death certificate of the Petitioners grandmother Karuvakkal W/o. Muththaiah, who passed away on 03.12.1957 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Ms.M.P.Roniga For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner's grandmother Karuvakkal passed away on

03.12.1957 and her grandfather passed away on 11.07.1969. Their deaths were not registered. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to obtain their death certificate. Hence, she approached the first respondent for registration. The first respondent vide memorandum dated 28.08.2025 informed the petitioner that since the deaths in question took place before the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 came into force, it is not possible to grant relief to the petitioner. Challenging the stand of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai this writ petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the order dated 25.03.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.6943 of 2024 (Abdul Majeeth Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District & another). Paragraph 5 and 6 of the order read as follows:

“5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The first respondent asked a wrong question to himself. The question is not whether the Central Act 18 of 1969 is prospective or retrospective. The question is whether the petitioner can be granted relief. Before the Central Act 18 of 1969 was enacted, the registration of births, deaths and marriages Registration Act, 1886 was governing the field. Section 19 of the said Act reads as follows:-

“19. Duty of Registrar to register births and deaths of which notice is given.—Every Registrar of Births and Deaths of notice of a birth or death within the local area or among the class for which he is appointed, shall, if the notice is given within the prescribed time and in the prescribed mode by a person authorized by this Act to give the notice, forthwith make an entry of the birth or death in the proper register book:”

Section 22 of the said Act provide for entry of birth or death. Section 22 of the Act read as follows:-

“22. Entry of birth or death to be signed by person giving notice.— (1) When an entry of a birth or death has been made by the Registrar of Births and Deaths under section 19, the person giving notice of the birth or death must sign the entry in the register in the presence of the Registrar:”

Thus, there was a mechanism for registering one's birth and death. Of-course, it was then optional. Only recently, it has been made compulsory. The learned Special Government Pleader drew my attention to Rule 9 of Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and deaths Rules, 2000 which is as follows:-

“9.Authority for delayed registration and fee payable thereof under section 13 (3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence shall be registered by an order of the Executive Magistrate not below the rank of a Revenue Divisional Officer] and on payment of late fee of 3 [rupees Five hundred].”

6. If there was no system of registering one's birth prior to 1969, the impugned memorandum has to be sustained. But there was a statute governing the field. The petitioner's parents failed to register his birth. Therefore, Rule 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Registr