Disposed

K.Lakshmanan, v. The District Collector

Madras HC6 Jan 2017WP/325/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a writ petition directed the 2nd respondent (Tahsildar) to consider the petitioners' representation dated 22.08.2016 on merits and pass appropriate orders regarding the issuance of a Legal Heir Certificate in view of their application dated 22.08.2016 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated 22.08.2016 on merits and pass appropriate orders within one month.

K.Lakshmanan, Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.325 of 2017

¶6

K.Lakshmanan 2. L.Chandra ... Petitioners

¶7

vs.
1. The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate,
Chennai.
2. The Tahsildar,
Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to issue legal heir Certificate to the petitioners in view of the application dated 22.08.2016 within a stipulated time.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Arivazhagan
For Respondents : Mr.P.V.Selvakumar,
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R

¶10

Petitioners have come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to issue Legal Heir Certificate to them in view of their application dated 22.08.2016.

¶11

According to the petitioners, their daughter Vimala died on 22.08.2015 leaving behind them as the surviving legal heirs. Their son-in-law and grandson died prior to the death of their daughter. Hence, the petitioners approached the 2^nd respondent on 22.08.2016 for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate in respect of the death of their daughter Vimala, along with relevant documents. Since their grievance is not redressed, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶12

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

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents ought to have considered the request of the petitioners and issued Legal Heir Certificate to them as per G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 21.09.2015.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court directs the 2 nd respondent to consider the
petitioners' representation dated 22.08.2016 on merits and in
accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within a period
of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above
direction. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
aeb
To:
1. The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate,
Chennai.
2. The Tahsildar,
Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004.
+1cc to Mr.Arivazhagan, Advocate, S.R.No.1458
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.2064
JP(CO)
RS(08/02/2017)
Order in
W.P.No.325 of 2017

¶16

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

K.Lakshmanan, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Lakshmanan, v. The District Collector

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

Dr.Kent.a.Krishnaswamy, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Jagatheesan, Vs Dr.C.Chandromouli, Ias.

Gowri, D/o.Kolanthai @ Vs The Thasildar

V.Harikrishnan Naicker, Vs The Inspector General of

Dr.M.Mohan, Venkatachalapathy Vs The Secretary

Fathima Thameema Pk Vs The Secretary