Remanded

Ahamadha v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC14 Jul 2015WP(MD)/11944/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a legal heir certificate application without a hearing, the court set aside the order and remitted the matter to the respondent to conduct a proper enquiry after affording the petitioner and interested parties an opportunity. The case was disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to respondent to conduct proper enquiry after due opportunity within six weeks.

Ahamadha Vs the Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.11944 of 2015

¶7

Ahamadha W/o.Kadhar Meera

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai. ... Respondent

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to impugned order of the respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.4610/15/E2 dated 4.7.2015, and quash the same as illegal, consequently to direct the respondent to issue a legal heir certificate as sought for by the petitioner, on the basis of her application dated 10.6.2015.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.4610/15/E2 dated 4.7.2015, and consequently to direct the respondent to issue legal heir certificate, as sought for by the petitioner in her application dated 10.6.2015.

¶15

Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent.

¶16

By consent, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ grandfather, namely, S.K.Buhardeen died on 10.07.1963 leaving behind him, four persons, namely, B.Mohammed Ibrahim, B.Hameedha

¶18

¶19

Beevi, B.Bazeera and B.Katheeja Beevi. All the above legal-heirs died subsequent to the death of the petitioner's grandfather. Hence, the petitioner submitted an application on 10.06.2015 before the respondent seeking legal-heir certificate. The respondent forwarded the said application to the Revenue Inspector, Kunnathur for getting proper report. The Revenue Inspector conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 30.06.2015 in favour of the petitioner. During enquiry, the Kalimangalam Muslim Uravinmurai Jamaath and Hasanathul Jaria Madarasha and the President, Kalimangalam Panchayat gave a certificate dated 15.06.2015 certifying that the above referred deceased persons are the legal heirs of the petitioner's grandfather. Thereafter, the respondent instead of issuing the legal-heir certificate, passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application and directed the petitioner to approach the Court for getting legal-heir certificate. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed. Further, the learned counsel submitted that being the only surviving legal-heir of the deceased, the petitioner was never called for to appear before the authority for conducting any enquiry. Hence, the impugned order has to be quashed.

¶21

On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent is valid in law.

¶22

Admittedly, there is no opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to conduct proper enquiry after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as any of the interested parties. During enquiry, the petitioner is directed to produce necessary documentary evidences, which shall be considered and orders be passed on merits and in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

¶29

¶30

The Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai.

¶31

+1cc to MR.D.Venkatesh, Advocate Sr.No.38200 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.38233 skn AA/22.07.2015/3p-4c/

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.11944 of 2015 14.07.2015

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ahamadha v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahamadha v. the Tahsildar

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

M.Rajalakshmi Vs the Sub Registrar

R. Sivanthi Vs the Tahsildar

V.Rajangam Vs the Tahsildar

M/S Vasantham Agencies, Vs the Chief General Manager

King Universe Matriculation Vs the Registrar

Karuppasamy Vs the District Collector