Disposed

M.Manodhambal v. The District Collector

Madras HC13 Jun 2022WP/14564/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a legal heir certificate that excluded the petitioner, the Madras High Court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the R.D.O. instead of adjudicating the merits via writ.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the R.D.O. within one week, with final orders to be passed within three months.

M.Manodhambal Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 13.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

W.P.No.14564 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.13767 of 2022

M.Manodhambal

..Petitioner

-Vs-

The District Collector, Collector Office,

¶10

Ariyalur District.

¶11

The Tasildhar, Dhasildhar office,

¶12

Ariyalur District.

¶13

The Revenue Inspector, Thirumanoor Village,

¶14

Ariyalur District.

¶15

P.Rajamani

¶16

R.Thiruveragam 6. R.Palanisamy ..Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the legal heir certificate issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 28.02.2017 in P.a.mu.A1/944/2017 and quash the same and direct the 2^nd respondent to issue a fresh legal heir certificate by adding the petitioner's name as per law.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Abdul Rahim

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay

¶20

Additional Government Pleader

¶21

for R1 to R3

¶22

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned legal heirship certificate dated 28.02.2017 issued by the 2^nd

¶23

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

¶24

respondent disclosing the respondents 4 to 6 as the legal heirs of the deceased Mr.Rengasamy who died on 12.06.2011. The petitioner claims that she is the daughter of first wife of the deceased Rengasamy.

¶25

According to the petitioner, under the impugned legal heirship certificate, the 2^nd respondent has issued the legal heirship certificate without proper enquiry and issued the same disclosing only the second wife and her two sons as the only legal heirs excluding the petitioner. The legal heirs disclosed in the impugned legal heirship certificate are 4^th to 6^th respondents.

¶26

Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard in the enquiry proceedings which culminated in the issuance of the impugned legal heirship certificate. The petitioner has enclosed the documents along with the writ petition including a Will dated 06.10.2008, in order to substantiate her claim that she is also one of the legal heirs of the deceased Rengasamy. It is for the statutory authority to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law.

¶27

Admittedly, there is a statutory appeal available to the petitioner if aggrieved by the impugned legal heirship certificate. The petitioner has not availed the same, but instead has chosen to file the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, has also not raised any serious objection if a direction is issued by this Court to the petitioner to approach the R.D.O. who is the competent Appellate Authority. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as well as the respondents, if a direction is issued by this Court to the petitioner to challenge the impugned legal heirship certificate dated 28.02.2017 issued by the 2^nd respondent before the R.D.O. within a time frame to be fixed by this Court and consequential direction is also issued to direct the R.D.O. to pass final orders on the said statutory appeal within a time frame to be fixed by this Court after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner and the persons who have been disclosed as legal heirs under the impugned legal heirship certificate.

¶28

For the forgoing reasons, this Court directs the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the concerned RDO as against the impugned legal heirship certificate dated 28.02.2017 issued by the 2^nd respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said statutory appeal within the stipulated time, the concerned RDO shall pass final orders on the said statutory appeal within a period of three months thereafter after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner and the respondents 4

¶29

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

¶30

to 6 and any other necessary party whom the R.D.O. deems fit to enquiry.

¶31

With the aforesaid direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶34

//True copy//

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

vsi

¶37

¶38

The District Collector,

¶39

Collector Office, Ariyalur District.

¶40

The Tasildhar,

¶41

Dhasildhar office,Ariyalur District.

¶42

The Revenue Inspector, Thirumanoor Village,

¶43

Ariyalur District.

¶44

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur.

¶45

+1cc to Mr.J.Abdul Rahim, Advocate SR.No.34809

¶46

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.35372

¶47

W.P.No.14564 of 2022

¶48

RK(CO) GMY(20/06/2022)

¶49

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

M.Manodhambal v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Manodhambal 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

T.P.Mohan Vs Dr.v.P.Jeyaseelan,I.a.S

C.Adhimoolam Vs The Superintending Engineer

K.Ramesh Babu Vs The Superintending Engineer

Rajesh Kanna Murugaiyan Vs The Union of India

M.Muniappan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.S.Mohanraj Vs Union of India