Disposed¶30

A.Pappathi v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC10 Jul 2025WP(MD)/18753/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heir certificate; omission of petitioner's name; daughter of deceased Nadarajan; Tahsildar Manapparai Taluk Trichy District; reconsideration direction; hearing to private respondents before further orders; representation dated 26.06.2025; four weeks compliance; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; disposal at admission; notice dispensed with; no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD) No.14374 of 2025 closed; Tamil Nadu revenue administration.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent (Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk) to reconsider the Legal Heir Certificate after considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.06.2025 and after hearing private respondents 2 to 4, within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition closed.

A.Pappathi Vs The Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, stated to be the daughter of Late.Nadarajan, was wrongly excluded from the Legal Heir Certificate issued to private respondents 2 to 4, warranting quashing of the Tahsildar's impugned order and a consequential direction to include her name in the certificate.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the first respondent (Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk) to reconsider the Legal Heir Certificate after considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.06.2025, and held that before passing further orders the private respondents 2 to 4 shall also be heard.

¶28

Key takeaways

The reconsideration exercise directed above shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶29
Notice on respondents 2 to 4 was dispensed with, as no adverse orders were proposed to be passed against them, enabling disposal of the writ petition at admission with the consent of counsel.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (C. Saravanan, J.) — W.P.(MD) No. 18753 of 2025, decided 10.07.2025: Petitioner claiming to be the daughter of Late.Nadarajan sought certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 to quash the Tahsildar's order in Pa.Mu.No. Aa1/921/2018, alleging her name was wrongly omitted from the Legal Heir Certificate issued to private respondents 2 to 4. Disposing of the petition at admission with consent of counsel and notice to respondents 2 to 4 dispensed with (no adverse orders proposed against them), the Court directed the Tahsildar to reconsider the Legal Heir Certificate in the light of the petitioner's representation dated 26.06.2025, after affording an opportunity of hearing to private respondents 2 to 4, completing the exercise within four weeks. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No. 18753 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No. 18753 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) No.14374 of 2025

¶7

A.Pappathi ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.

¶10

Arangasamy 3. Gopi 4. Kalidas ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the first respondent in Pa.Mu.No. Aa1/921/2018 dated Nil.02.2018 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional, consequentially, direct the first respondent to include the petitioner’s name in the

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD) No. 18753 of 2025

¶15

legal heir certificate.

¶16

For petitioner : Mr. A.Vadivel

¶17

For respondents : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate for R1

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission with the consent

¶21

of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and after dispensing with the notice on the respondents 2 to 4, as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed against them.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s name has been wrongly left out in the Legal Heir Certificate issued in the name of the private respondents 2 to 4.

¶23

It is informed that the petitioner is the daughter of the Late.Nadarajan. However, while issuing the Legal Heir Certificate to the private respondents 2 to

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No. 18753 of 2025

¶27

4, the petitioner’s name has not been included as a legal heir of the Late.Nadarajan.

¶28

Considering the same, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to reconsider the aforesaid Legal Heir Certificate, after considering the petitioner’s representation, dated 26.06.2025. Needless to state, before passing further orders, the private respondents 2 to 4 shall also be heard.

¶29