Allowed¶32

Vijay v. The Revenue Divisional officer

Madras HC23 Feb 2026WP/6452/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heirship certificate — rejection by Tahsildar, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri — applicant's father had two wives — rejection order undated, non-speaking and passed without personal hearing — violation of natural justice — certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 — order quashed and remitted for fresh consideration within three weeks after hearing petitioner and other legal heirs — writ allowed, no costs — Madras High Court — P.T. Asha, J. — 23-02-2026 — WP No. 6452 of 2026 — Application No TN-7202509121561.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order quashed and remitted to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and appropriate orders within three weeks, after hearing the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶32

Vijay Vs The Revenue Divisional officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the undated order of rejection passed by the 2nd respondent in Application No TN-7202509121561, being a non-speaking order passed without an opportunity of personal hearing, is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

On a mere perusal, the impugned order is a non-speaking order passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and is therefore liable to be quashed.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order is quashed and remitted back to the second respondent.

¶31

Key takeaways

The second respondent shall consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after hearing the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased.ratio¶31
The Writ Petition is allowed; no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition (WMP.No.7009 of 2026) is closed.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WP No. 6452 of 2026, Madras High Court, P.T. Asha, J., 23-02-2026) under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash the undated rejection order of the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar in Application No TN-7202509121561 refusing a legal heirship certificate to the petitioner on the ground that his father had two wives. HELD: the impugned order was a non-speaking order passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and was liable to be quashed; the order was quashed and remitted to the 2nd respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders within three weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, after hearing the petitioner and the other legal heirs of the deceased. Writ petition allowed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP.No.7009 of 2026) closed.

¶1

WP No. 6452 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

WP No. 6452 of 2026 and WMP.No.7009 of 2026

Vijay

..Petitioner(s)

The Revenue Divisional officer Dharmapuri Revenue Division, Dharmapuri.

¶11

The Tahsildar Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmpauri District.

¶12

Saroja

¶13

Manimegalai

¶14

Kala

¶15

Sakthivel

¶16

Kumutha

¶17

..Respondent(s)

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the undated impugned order of rejection issued by the 2nd respondent in Application No TN-7202509121561 and to quash the same, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue legal heirship certificate for the petitioner.

¶19

Page1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

WP No. 6452 of 2026

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Neelakandan, AAG asst. by Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, SGP, for R1 & R2

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the undated impugned order of rejection issued by the 2nd respondent in Application No TN-7202509121561 and consequently, to direct the second respondent to issue a legal heirship certificate to the petitioner.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that his father had 2 wives. His first wife is the third respondent, through her he had 2 children, namely, Sakthivel and Kumutha. Since the third respondent was not in good health, she consented to the father’s second marriage. Thereafter, the father married the petitioner’s mother and had 2 children through her, namely, the petitioner and his sister Manimegalai. The petitioner’s father died in a road accident on 11.08.2025 and the death certificate was issued on 29.08.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for issuance of legal heirship certificate, which was rejected by the second respondent on the ground that his father had 2 wives, and he was directed to approach the Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

__________ Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 6452 of 2026

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and peruse the materials available on record.

¶30

On a mere perusal of the impugned order would indicate that it is a

¶31

non-speaking order passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the said order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and remitted back to the second respondent. The second respondent shall consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased.

¶32