Allowed

Susheela v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Sept 2023WP(C)/1293/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against refusing Legal Heirship Certificate due to missing husband. Court held certificate requires presumption of death or police enquiry. Petition allowed; petitioners directed to register FIR and undergo police investigation before approaching Tahsildar.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Petitioners directed to register an FIR and conduct a police enquiry; after report receipt, they may approach Tahsildar for the certificate within specified timelines.

Susheela Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

CR

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 21ST BHADRA, 1945

¶6

WP(C) NO. 1293 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 SUSEELA

¶9

AGED 62 YEARS

¶10

W/O.RAJENDRAN, MELEVILA, PUTHANVEEDU, CHETTAPPALAM,
VEMOM, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD, PIN - 670645

¶11

2 MEENA DEVI AGED 35 YEARS

¶12

D/O. RAJENDRAN, MELEVILA, PUTHANVEEDU, CHETTAPPALAM, VEMOM, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD, PIN - 670645

¶13

3 MAYA DEVI AGED 25 YEARS D/O. RAJENDRAN, MELEVILA, PUTHANVEEDU, CHETTAPPALAM, VEMOM, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD, PIN - 670645

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR
T.O.DEEPA
C.SIVADAS

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶18

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122

¶19

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER WAYANAD, MANANATHAVADY P.O, WAYANAD, PIN - 670645

¶20

4 TAHSILDAR MANANATHAVADY TALUK OFFICE, MANANATHAVADY P.O, WAYANAD, PIN - 670645

¶21

5 VILLAGE OFFICER MANANATHAVADY VILLAGE OFFICE, MANANATHAVADY P.O, WAYANAD, PIN - 670645

¶22

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE[GP]

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶24

12.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C) NO. 1293 OF 2023 2

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioners seek that competent among the respondents be directed to issue them a Legal Heirship Certificate because, the husband of the first among them – Sri.Rajendran, has been missing as early as from 20.06.2002. They say that Sri.Rajendran left home usually on the afore date, but never returned; and that, even though First Information Reports (FIR) were registered by their relatives, it do not bear any fruit. They say that, therefore, they are now entitled to obtain a Legal Heirship Certificate with respect to him and that the Authorities are obligated to grant it, without insisting on a “Man Missing Certificate”.

¶28

The afore submissions of Smt.T.O.Deepa – learned counsel for the petitioners, were answered by Smt.Vidya Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, saying that as long as there is nothing concrete to establish that Sri.Rajendran is missing and that he is perhaps not alive, a Legal Heirship Certificate, as requested by the petitioners, cannot be granted. She explained that even though the petitioners say that an FIR was registered by their relatives, nothing has been placed on record; and that, as per her instructions, no such has been registered. She submitted that, therefore, she leaves this Court to issue appropriate orders.

¶29

WP(C) NO. 1293 OF 2023 3

¶30

When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is evident that a Legal Heirship Certificate can be granted only if there is a legally sanctioned presumption possible, or if it is factually assessed that Sri.Rajendran is now no more. For this, certainly, an enquiry is required to be done by the Police, which does not appear to be done until now.

¶31

This Court is persuaded to say as afore because, it is certainly possible that Sri.Rajendran is still available somewhere, perhaps being without the capacity to contact the petitioners for some reason; and it is, therefore, in their interest also that he is traced out, if possible.

¶32

In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions:

¶33

(a) I direct the petitioners to register an FIR with the jurisdictional Police Station within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment as regards the factum of Sri.Rajendran being missing from 20.06.2022.

¶34

(b) The Station House Officer of the jurisdictional Police Station will, thereupon, cause an investigation into the whereabouts of Sri.Rajendran and will complete the same within a period of one

¶35

WP(C) NO. 1293 OF 2023 4

¶36

month thereafter.

¶37

(c) On completion of the enquiry as afore and based on the report to be issued to the petitioners by the Police, they will be at full liberty to approach the 4^th respondent – Tahsildar, for issuance of a Legal Heirship Certificate; which shall then be considered in terms of law and if they are found entitled, to be issued to them within a period of one month from the date on which such request is made.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶40

MC/12.9

¶41

WP(C) NO. 1293 OF 2023 5

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1293/2023

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
11/07/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P-2A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT ROHINI VS.
TAHSILDAR [MANU/KE/2011/2021=WP(C) NO.9657
OF 2021].
Exhibit P-3A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/08/2022
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT-TAHSILDAR.
Exhibit P-4A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/10/2022
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT-TAHSILDAR.

Susheela v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheela v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Gopalan Nair, Vs the Union of India

Radhakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Deepak S.V Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

M/S Iassit Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dragonstone Reality Pvt. Ltd.

Shahida Vs Vijaya Aharodyama Sivapura

Master Abhishek Minor Vs District Legal Service Authority, Kannur, Represented by the Secretary