Disposed

S.P.Murthy, v. the District Collector

Madras HC11 Nov 2024WP(MD)/10724/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that a legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar was invalid due to its non-standard format and lack of evidence in the office records regarding its issuance, effectively quashing its legal force.

What did the court decide?

The impugned legal heir certificate dated 22.09.2001 is held to be invalid with no force of law.

S.P.Murthy, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10724 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10724 of 2013

¶7

S.P.Murthy ...Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶10

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar, Manachanallur Post, Trichy District – 621 005.

¶12

4.The Deputy Tahsildar, Manachanallur Post, Trichy District – 621 005.

¶13

5.Shajahan (died)

¶14

6.S.Dilshad

¶15

7.S.Nishad Ahmad

¶16

8.S.Humera

¶17

9.Roshanara

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

(R-6 to R-9 are substituted vide court order dated 07.11.2024 in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 in W.P.(MD)No.10724 of 2013)

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.10724 of 2013

¶22

Prayer:

¶23

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take immediate action on the petitioner's complaint dated 15.11.2010 pertaining to the issue of fraudulent legal heir certificate dated 22.09.2001 by the third respondent.

¶24

For Petitioner : Ms.Maria Roseline

¶25

For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶26

For R-6 to R-9 : No Appearance

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Heard Ms.Maria Roseline, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶29

Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.

¶30

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Mandamus,

¶31

directing the first respondent to take immediate action on the petitioner's complaint dated 15.11.2010 pertaining to the issue of fraudulent legal heir certificate dated 22.09.2001 by the third respondent.

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.10724 of 2013

¶34

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 07.11.2024, it is noted that in the impleading petition, the proposed respondents, had not appeared before this Court. For the reasons stated in the affidavit, the impleading petition was allowed and the Writ Petition has been been listed today and when the matter was taken up for hearing, there is no representation on the side of the respondents 6 to 9.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on a

¶36

complaint given by the petitioner, the third respondent had conducted an enquiry and by a communication dated 19.09.2011 had forwarded the report to the second respondent for further action. The present Writ Petition was filed in the year 2013. Even as of now, no action has been initiated by the second respondent herein.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that a reading of the report of the third respondent itself indicates that no such certificate was issued by the office of the third respondent and no back file relating to the said certificate was available in the office of the third respondent and would also indicate that the third respondent himself has given a finding that the said certificate was not in the usual

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.10724 of 2013

¶40

format that is being followed by the Revenue Department for grant of legal heirship certificate.

¶41

Since the official respondents themselves had indicated that no

¶42

such certificate had been given and a perusal of the said certificate also shows that the same is not in the format as prescribed by the authorities, the said certificate could only be deemed to be an invalid certificate having no consequences whatsoever.

¶43

In view of the above findings, I am inclined to hold that the

¶44

impugned certificate is an invalid certificate having no force of law.

¶45

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶46

No costs.

¶47

11.11.2024

¶48

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.10724 of 2013

¶51

To:

¶52

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶53

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶54

3.The Tahsildar, Manachanallur Post, Trichy District – 621 005.

¶55

4.The Deputy Tahsildar, Manachanallur Post, Trichy District – 621 005.

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶57

W.P.(MD)No.10724 of 2013

¶58

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶59

Nsr

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.10724 of 2013

¶61

11.11.2024

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

S.P.Murthy, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.P.Murthy, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Azhagu Raja, S/O.Palaniyandi Vs the Joint Sub Registrar-I

T.Shanmugavel Vs the District Collector

M.Mariammal, W/O.Maruthiah Vs the District Collector

Santhana Muthiah.R Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Thirumagal Dyeing Works Vs Joint Commissioner Of Gst And Central Excise

Agrini Enclave Houses and Vs the Director of Town and