Disposed¶26

Krishnasamy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC11 Feb 2026WP(MD)/21590/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delayed death registration writ (Article 226, Certiorarified Mandamus) before Madras High Court, Madurai Bench: Revenue Divisional Officer's rejection of death-registration request set aside for want of jurisdiction; registration lies with the Birth and Death Registration Authority, Pudukottai Municipality; Tahsildar's recommendation dated 13.06.2023 to be considered after enquiry within six weeks; relevant terms - jurisdiction of revenue authorities over death registration, adopted son objection, six-week compliance timeline, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the first respondent set aside; second respondent directed to consider the Tahsildar's recommendation dated 13.06.2023, conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders within six weeks; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶26

Krishnasamy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) had jurisdiction in the matter of registering the death of the petitioner's father, and whether his order rejecting the request was liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The first respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) cannot have any jurisdiction for registering the death of the petitioner's father; it is only for the second respondent (Birth and Death Registration Authority) to pass appropriate orders and issue the Certificate.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The order impugned in the writ petition (rejection by the first respondent) is set aside.

¶24

Key takeaways

The second respondent is directed to consider the recommendation of the Tahsildar, Pudukottai dated 13.06.2023, conduct an enquiry, and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(MD).No.21590 of 2023 (Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; single judge R. Vijayakumar; decided 11.02.2026): Petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai (No.OMUA6/4015/2023, dated 28.08.2023 (28.07.2023)) rejecting registration of the death of the petitioner's father Seetharaman (died 11.08.2000), refused solely because the deceased was the adopted son of one Ayyal Raj. Held: the first respondent has no jurisdiction for registering the death; registration is a matter for the second respondent, the Birth and Death Registration Authority, Pudukottai Municipality. Impugned order set aside; second respondent directed to consider the Tahsildar, Pudukottai's recommendation dated 13.06.2023, conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders within six weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. Writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.21590 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.21590 of 2023

¶7

Krishnasamy ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai.

¶10

The Birth and Death Registration Authority, Pudukottai Municipality, Pudukottai. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent in No.OMUA6/ 4015/2023, dated 28.08.2023 (28.07.2023) quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the second respondent to issue death of the petitioner's deceased father Seetharaman S/o.Ayyal Raj within time stipulated by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan

¶13

For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.21590 of 2023

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent wherein, the request of the petitioner for registering the death of the petitioner's father has been rejected.

¶19

A perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition reveals that the petitioner's father namely, Seetharaman, had passed away on 11.08.2000. The petitioner has approached the concerned Tahsildar for registering the death of his father. The Tahsildar has recommended the same to the first respondent on 13.06.2023. However, the first respondent has proceeded to pass the present impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner's father is the adopted son of one Ayyal Raj and therefore, the petitioner has approached the competent Court.

¶20

The petitioner has not approached the revenue officials for issuance of death Certificate, it is only for registering the death of the petitioner's father. In such circumstances, the first respondent cannot have any jurisdiction for registering the death of the petitioner's father. It is only for the second respondent to pass appropriate orders and issue Certificate.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD).No.21590 of 2023

¶24

Therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside.

¶25

The second respondent is directed to consider the recommendation of the Tahsildar, Pudukottai dated 13.06.2023 and after conducting an enquiry, pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26