BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 20.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

&

W.M.P.(MD)No.26156 of 2025

1.K.Annasamy

2.A.Muthukarthick

3.K.Murugesan ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

O/o District Collectorate,

Madurai.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

O/o.Revenue Divisional Office,

Madurai District.

3.The Tahsildar,

O/o.Thasildar,

Madurai West Zone,

Next to Virattipathu Village,

Madurai District.

4.The Village Administrative Officer,

O/o.Village Administrative Office,

Achampathu,

Madurai District.

5.The Inspector of Police, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai City. ... 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 order passed by the Respondent No. 2 vide oo.mu.en. 2859/2024/F dated 23.09.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the Respondent No.2 and 3 to issue a death certificate and legal heir certificate for the missing person namely Mrs. Maneeswari by considering the 1st petitioner representation dated 05.08.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Naresh Prabhu For Respondent : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Crl.side)

for R5

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2. Maneeswarai is the wife of the first petitioner. She is the daughter of the third petitioner and the mother of the second petitioner. It appears that there was some matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and his wife. On

08.09.2013, Maneeswari left the matrimonial home on the pretext that she is going to attend the marriage function of a relative. She never returned home. The first petitioner lodged complaint before the fifth respondent. Crime No. 867 of 2013 was registered on 22.09.2013. The learned Government Advocate informs the Court that FIR was closed as 'action dropped' on 11.12.2014. Thus, for more than 12 years, nobody has heard of the said Maneeswari. In these circumstances, the relevant provisions under Section 111 of BSA, 2023 corresponding to Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act can be invoked. The petitioner approached the jurisdictional RDO / R2. The second respondent vide memorandum dated 23.09.2024 informed the petitioner to approach the civil Court. Challenging the stand of the second respondent, this writ petition has been filed.

3. While the stand of the second respondent that she cannot issue the death certificate is correct, she could have granted relief to the applicant by issuing legal heir certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the decision reported in 2024 (2) CWC 787 (R.Janaki Vs.

Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk). I had held as follows:-

“2. I must straightaway observe that the course of action indicated by the first respondent is not feasible of compliance. It has been held that a bare suit for declaration that a person has not been heard for a certain number of years and that therefore, decree should be granted that he is presumed to have died is not maintainable. The consistent view of the courts has been that such a relief will not fall within the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which provides for invoking the court's jurisdiction for obtaining declaration of status or right (2022 AIR (Ker) 52, 2022 (1) LW.32, 2008 (3) LW.531, ILR 1948 Bom 633, SA No.194 of 2008 (Allahabad High Court, AIR 2021 Chh 20, ILR 1928 All 678, ILR 1928 LAH 467 and Vol 32 CAL WN 1084).

3.The real difficulty appears to be the guidelines provided in G.O Ms No.478 Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 29.09.2022 for issuance of legal heir certificate. It has been laid down therein that the applicant must enclose the death certificate of the deceased. In this case, the applicant is not in a position to produce death certificate. By invoking Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act corresponding to Section 111 of BSA 2023, there can be a presumption of death