Disposed

B.Sathyakumari v. the Tahsildhar

Madras HC16 Jul 2024WP/18967/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that mandamus cannot be issued to compel issuance of a legal heir certificate after the application was rejected. The Court noted that the petitioner must file an appeal under the relevant Government Order and closed the petition with no costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed with no costs; no mandatory writ was issued as mandamus was held not maintainable.

B.Sathyakumari Vs the Tahsildhar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:2721

¶2

W.P.No.18967 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

Dated: 16.07.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

W.P.No.18967 of 2024

B.Sathyakumari

... Petitioner

The Tahsildar, Velacherry Taluk, Chennai District.

¶12

.... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue the legal heir certificate of Balan who died on 20.11.2020 to the petitioner based on the representation dated 22.04.2024 forthwith.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Nagoor Moideen For Respondent : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.U.Baranidharan Additional Government Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts

¶17

notice for respondents and is represented by Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General. They state that a mandamus would not lie

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Pg.No.1/4

¶20

W.P.No.18967 of 2024

¶21

insofar as the application of the petitioner seeking issuance of legal heirship certificate has already been rejected by order dated 22.04.2024.

¶22

A copy of the order is also circulated, which reveals that there was an inspection caused by the Revenue Inspector and based on the reports that were obtained as well as objections on the ground that the deceased has three wives, the application was rejected.

¶23

It is unclear as to whether the reports of the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, the Revenue Inspector and the objection recieved (as stated in the order of rejection) have been supplied to the petitioner.

¶24

Be that as it may, insofar as the order has come to be passed, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, mandamus cannot be issued and as a representation would have no effect at this stage. It would hence be more appropriate for the petitioner to file an appeal in terms of clause (7) of Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.478 dated 29.09.2022 before the Revenue Divisional Officer within the timeline stipulated in the Government Order.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents have supplied a copy of Government Order dated 29.09.2022 to the learned counsel for the petitioner in order that the petitioner may take due action.

¶26

Appeal, if and when filed, shall be taken up by the Revenue Divisional Officer. He will ensure that necessary enquiries will be caused, result of the

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Pg.No.2/4

¶29

W.P.No.18967 of 2024

¶30

enquiries are put to the petitioner and objection, if any, considered. Thereafter, orders will be passed after giving the petitioner due opportunity of hearing in

¶31

person, expeditiously.

¶32

In light of the above, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs.

¶33

16.07.2024

¶34

Index : Yes / No Speaking order Neutral citations:Yes sl To

¶35

The Tahsildar, Velacherry Taluk, Chennai District.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Pg.No.3/4

¶38

W.P.No.18967 of 2024

¶39

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶40

¶41

W.P.No.18967 of 2024

¶42

16.07.2024

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

Pg.No.4/4

B.Sathyakumari v. the Tahsildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sathyakumari v. the Tahsildhar

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.J.Dhinesh Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Dr.Gayathri.K Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Nalco Metal Products Limited Vs the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution

Vadivel alias Senthil Vs the District Revenue Officer

R.B.Wovens P Ltd., Vs the Chairman

M/S.Prime Global Industries Vs the Chairman