The revenue authority has a duty to issue a legal heirship certificate as per the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Commissioner of Land Administration.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 05.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

WP (MD)No.27634 of 2022

P.Stella

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

Thanjavur District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

3.The Tahsildar,

Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District..

4.The Village Administrative Officer,

Paramakurichi Village,

Tiruchendur Taluk,

Thoothukudi District.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating

to the online impugned rejection order dated 30.08.2022 of the 3^rd

respondent in Application Number : TN/720220829735, dated

29.08.2022 of the petitioner and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary,

unconstitutional, unjust and without jurisdiction and consequentially pass

an order directing the 3^rd respondent to issue a legal heir certificate of

deceased T.Jebakumar S/o.Thangaraj who is the brother of the

petitioner by considering her application No.TN/720220829735, dated

29.08.2022.

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

For Petitioner

: Mr.J.Priscilla Pandian

For Respondents : Mr.AK.Manikkam,

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2.The petitioner claims to be sister of one Jebakumar who died on

11.04.2022. According to the petitioner, her sister Vigilapauline and

herself are the surviving legal heirs. They come under Class-II legal

heirs. When they submitted an application for legal heir certificate, the

third respondent declined to entertain the same. The petitioner was

called upon to move the jurisdictional civil court. Challenging the stand

of the revenue authority, this writ petition has been filed.

3.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court

in the decision reported in 2022 (4) CTC 1 (P. Venkatachalam and Ors.

vs. The Tahsildar, Kumarapalayam Taluk and Ors) held 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

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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

3/7

htt