The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tahsildar's order rejecting an application for a legal heirship certificate because it was passed without hearing the petitioners, violating natural justice principles.
Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to first respondent for fresh hearing within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.12.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.P.No.15948 of 2017
1.Shakila Banu
2.Nafiza Begum @ Deepti
3.Master D.J.Retheck
(Petitioners 2 and 3 are impleaded by KRCBJ
by order dated 06.12.2017 in WMP No.20998/2017
in W.P.No.15948/2017) ...Petitioners
Vs
1.The Tahsildar,
Aminjikarai Taluk,
Chennai.
2.Deepthi
(R2 impleaded as per order dated 06.12.2017
by KRCBJ in WMP No.31118/2017 in W.P.No.15948/17)
...Respondents
Prayer:-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 of the proceedings in ROC C2 2210/2017 dated 26.05/2017 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondent to issue a legal heirship certificate to the petitioner and her minor son Iqbal.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents : Mr.R.Govindasamy for R1 Special Government Pleader Mr.B.Eswaran for R2
2
ORDER
The first petitioner is the mother and the second and third
petitioners are her children. They are aggrieved against the order of the first respondent/Thasildar dated 26.05.2017, rejecting the first petitioner's application dated 13.04.2017, seeking for issuance of legal heirship certificate in pursuant to the death of her husband by name Javid Iqbal.
2.Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3.The first respondent has chosen to reject the request of the petitioner's application only based on the objection raised by the second respondent herein. The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that before passing the impugned order, the first respondent has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and therefore, it violates the
principles of natural justice.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent fairly submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the first respondent for considering the matter afresh, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both parties viz., the petitioner on one side and the second respondent on http://www.judis.nic.in
3
the other side. Accordingly, without expressing any view on the merits and contentions raised by both parties, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, only on the reason that the same was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for hearing the matter afresh and for passing orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing both parties viz., the petitioner and the second respondent. Such exercise shall
be done by the first respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
12.12.2017
Speaking/Non Speaking Index : Yes / No vri
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J. vri
4
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
(incharged Sub Collector),
Ponneri Taluk,
Ponneri,
Thiruvallur District.
2.The Thasildhar,
Ponneri Taluk,
Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.
3.The Revenue Inspector,
Sholavaram,
Ponneri Taluk,
Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.
4.The Village Administration Officer,
Attanthangal,
Ponneri Taluk,
Thiruvallur District.
W.P.No.15948 of 2017
12.12.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether impugned order was passed violating principles of natural justice.
Whether the order should be remitted back to the first respondent for hearing afresh.
Shakila Banu
Nafiza Begum
Master D.J. Retheck
The Tahsildar, Aminjikarai Taluk, Chennai
Deepthi
K. Ravichandrababu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
