M.Asha Vs the District Collector

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to consider petitioners representation to first respondent dated 20.08.2024 consequently direct the second respondent to issue fresh legal heirs certificate of Late.Mr.G.Munuswamy by including the

¶20

1/5

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.10616 of 2025

¶23

petitioners name.

¶24

For Petitioner	: Mr.J.Edison Gnanaraj
For R1 to R3	: Mr.R.Neelakandan
	Additional Advocate General VIII
	assisted by Mr.P.Murthi
	Government Advocate ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is filed to consider petitioners representation dated 20.08.2024 and consequently to direct the second respondent to issue fresh legal heirs certificate of Late.Mr.G.Munuswamy by including the petitioners name.

¶26

Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General VIII for the respondents 1 to 3 and perusing the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioners seems to be that one G.Munusamy, their father, died on 18.02.2023. He was married to two women, namely Lalitha and Pushpa. However, the said Lalitha and her children alone obtained the legal heirship certificate, without mentioning the names of the petitioners, who are the daughters of Pushpa, the second wife.

¶27

The learned Additional Advocate General VIII appearing on behalf of

¶28

2/5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.10616 of 2025

¶31

the respondents 1 to 3 submits that an appeal was originally filed against the legal heirship certificate and when the appeal also confirmed the legal heirship certificate, the petitioners have filed a revision before the District Revenue Officer.

¶32

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that they have not pressed the revision before the District Revenue Officer.

¶33

Be that as it may, since the earlier orders were passed by other authorities, it would be appropriate for the District Revenue Officer to consider the issue. Notwithstanding the earlier revision and its withdrawal by the petitioners, along with the web copy of the order, the petitioners shall make a fresh representation to the District Revenue Officer. The District Revenue Officer shall consider this as a revision filed within the time frame. The District Revenue Officer shall consider the issue on its merits by conducting an enquiry by issuing a notice to the petitioners as well as the other legal heirs.

¶34

It is made clear that, even as per the Government Order issued in this regard, if any particulars are erroneously given, it is always open for the

¶35

3/5

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.10616 of 2025

¶38

authorities to correct such particulars. Therefore, an enquiry may be conducted

¶39

by the District Revenue Officer and appropriate orders may be issued after hearing the parties. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order.

¶40