HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.20757 of 2016 DATE OF ORDER : 18.03.2026 Between:

Mr. Narra Venkat Ramaiah, S/o. Narayana, Aged 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mangalagudem, H/o. Kothur Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana State.

.. Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 3 others ..Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“… to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Memo vide R.C.No.B/ 475/2006 dated 7-6-2016 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and also without following due process of law and set aside the same and consequential directions to the respondents 2 to 4 to issue the death certificate of late Vipperla Appaiah S/o. Late Seetha Ramaiah R/o.Thallampadu Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District in pursuance of petitioner application dated 12-3-2016 immediately and pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Mr. Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that he made an application through mee-seva for issuance of death certificate of one Vipparla Appaiah and that a Memo dated 07.06.2016 was issued by respondent No.4 rejecting the request. The said Memo is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that death certificate of Vipparla Appaiah is not issued to petitioner on the ground that family members of Vipparla Appaiah are objecting for issuance of death certificate, as petitioner is not their family member. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 in his Memo had stated that application was made by a third party and that the death of Vipparla Appaiah was 55 years ago and the date of the death could not be determined and hence, denied issuance.

5. It is submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents that the certificate of death sought by petitioner, vide representation through mee-seva, cannot be issued, in light of the fact that Act came into force in 1969, and petitioner is seeking a death certificate by way of an extract from a register relating to a death that occurred fifty-five (55) years ago pertaining to Mr. Vipparla Appaiah. It is further submitted that Tahsildar rejected the issuance of certificate on the ground that the legal heirs of deceased had raised objections.

6. Section 17 of The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, [Central Act 18 of 1969, received the assent of the Vice-President acting as President on the 31.05.1969. Published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), Part II, Section 1, Page 133 dated 02.06.1969)], (for short ‘the Act’), is as follows:

“17. Search of births and deaths register.—(1) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the State Government, including rules relating to the payment of fees and postal charges, any person may—

(a) cause a search to be made by the Registrar for any entry in a register of births and deaths; and (b) obtain an extract from such register relating to any birth or death:

Provided that no extract relating to any death, issued to any person, shall disclose the particulars regarding the cause of death as entered in the register.

(2) All extracts given under this section shall be certified by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the State Government to give such extracts as provided in section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), and shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the birth or death to which the entry relates.”

7. On a reading of the Section 17 of the Act, it is apparent that any person may obtain an extract from the registrar relating to any birth or death.

8. Memo dated 07.