Raja Vs The Sub Collector

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st respondent from passing any orders on the application submitted by respondents 2 to 4 in Na.Ka.Aa2/4009/2025 dated 23.05.2026 seeking cancellation of the Legal Heir Certificate already issued in respect of petitioner's deceased father Thiru. Palani S/o.Ramasamy and consequential issuance of a fresh legal heir certificate including the names of respondents 2 to 4.

¶16

For Petitioner :Mr.K.Prakash For Respondents :Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari Central Govt. Standing Counsel for R1

¶17

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P(MD)No.17586 of 2026

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus forbearing the first respondent from proceeding with or passing any orders on the appeal preferred by respondents 2 to 4 challenging the legal heirship certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the jurisdictional Tahsildar.

¶23

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of fact arising out of rival claims to legal heirship. It was further submitted that respondents 2 to 4 are not entitled to claim any right under the legal heirship certificate. According to the petitioner, the second respondent is the second wife of the deceased and respondents 3 and 4 are the children born through the second respondent, whose claim to legal heirship is seriously disputed by the petitioner.

¶24

3.It was also contended that the legal heirship certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has been challenged after a lapse of nearly ten years and, therefore, the appeal preferred by respondents 2 to 4 is not maintainable.

¶25

4.Whether the first respondent has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and adjudicate the issues raised therein, including the

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.17586 of 2026

¶29

objection relating to limitation, are matters that fall for consideration by the appellate authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned.

¶30

5.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interdict the appellate proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and decide the appeal, including the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction and maintainability, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶31

6.There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶32

Index :Yes / No 24.06.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No

¶33

skn

¶34

To

¶35