Dismissed

Mohamed Sha .H v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC2 Dec 2011WP(MD)/4310/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, dismissed a writ petition filed for issuance of a Legal Heir Certificate. The court held that since the petitioner did not challenge the Tahsildar's earlier order rejecting their application on merits, the current petition was unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to approach appropriate forum as per earlier order.

Mohamed Sha .H Vs the Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:02.12.2011

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA

¶4

WP(MD)No.4310 of 2011

Mohamedsha H.

:Petitioner

-Vs-

The Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimaruthur, Tanjore District. :Respondent

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 15.11.2010 with regard to issuance of Legal Heir Certificate.

¶10

For Petitioner:Mr.P.Selvaraj For Respondent:Mr.V.Pandi, Govt.Advocate

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Mr.V.Pandi, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By mutual consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up final hearing.

¶13

2.The petitioner has come forward with the writ petition for a mandamus directing the respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 15.11.2010 with regard to issuance of Legal Heir Certificate.

¶14

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner sought for the relief of issue of Legal Heirship Certificate by preferring a representation dated 15.11.2010 to the respondent herein, but till date, no action has been taken. As no action has been taken, the petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition with the above said prayer.

¶15

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the application submitted by the petitioner dated 08.02.2010 was already considered by the Tahsildar and the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that on enquiry, it was found that the deceased was not having any direct legal heirs and as such, the Tahsildar has directed the petitioner to approach the civil Court.

¶16

5.This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

¶17

6.The fact remains that the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for the relief of directing the sole respondent to consider his representation dated 15.11.2010 for the relief of issue of Legal Heirship Certificate. However, it is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that the Tahsildar has already considered his application and rejected the same on the ground that on enquiry, it was found that the deceased was not having any direct legal heirs, and as such, the petitioner was asked to approach the civil Court. The said order is not challenged by the petitioner. In view of the same, the writ petition is hereby dismissed No costs. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate remedy, in the manner known to law.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar (Crl.side)

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

To:The Tahsildar,Thiruvidaimaruthur,Tanjore District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ +1CC to Mr.P.Selvaraj, Advocate. SR.No.42586. RP/16.12.2011/1P/3C. W.P.(MD)No.4310 of 2011,02.12.2011.

Mohamed Sha .H v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Sha .H v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Selvam, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Udayam Coconut Merchants, Vs the District Revenue Officer

Mr.P.Duraipanadian Vs Union of India

R.Angamuthu Vs the Secretary to Government

A. Ajeesh, S/O.Augustin, Vs the Tamil Nadu Uniform Service

The Correspondent, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu