Rajagiri P Vs The District Collector

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceeding order made

¶19

1/5

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(MD)No.4345 of 2026

¶22

by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.Aa3/8337/2025 dated 30.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to cancel the legal heir certificate issued in Certificate No. D.Dis.420/97 dated 13.01.1997 by considering the petitioner's appeal petition dated 07.10.2025.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Atham Ali For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3

¶24

No appearance for R4 and R5

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner challenges the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the second respondent and the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the third respondent. In the order dated 07.10.2025, the petitioner’s request for rectification of an error in the legal heir certificate issued in respect of his deceased father was rejected. In the order dated 30.12.2025, the second respondent dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶27

The petitioner’s father died on 29.03.1996, and the legal heir certificate was issued on 13.01.1997. In the said certificate, the name of the petitioner’s mother was shown as P. Ramayee @ Ramu, the fifth

¶28

2/5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD)No.4345 of 2026

¶31

respondent herein. According to the petitioner, his biological mother is the fourth respondent, and therefore, he submitted a representation to the third respondent seeking rectification of the error. The third respondent rejected the request stating that no power is conferred on him to rectify such an error. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and perused the materials available on record.

¶33

Though the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the second respondent dismissed it as being barred by limitation. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is not legally sustainable.

¶34

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the second respondent in proceedings O.Mu.Aa3/8337/2025 is hereby quashed. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the appeal on its own merits and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, without going into the question of limitation. Such exercise shall be completed within a

¶35

3/5

¶36

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

¶37

W.P(MD)No.4345 of 2026

¶38

period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶39

24.03.2026

¶40

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