Dismissed

Kagaji Paikaray v. Union of India andORS

Orissa HC7 Dec 2016WP(C)/3656/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal of a legal heir certificate under the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificates Rules, 1984. The Court held that compensation for overseas death did not qualify as a limited purpose under Rule 3(d). However, it directed the petitioner to approach civil courts for declaration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach civil courts for declaration.

Kagaji Paikaray Vs Union of India andORS — Succession and Inheritance | Orissa HC (2016)

¶1

 W.P. (C) No.3656 of 2014
7.12.2016
Heard.

¶2

 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the refusal order in t
he matter of grant of a legal heir certificate passed by the competent authority in exercise o
f power under the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificates Rules, 1984.

¶3

 Admittedly, the matter involves compensation on account of death of a person overseas.
 The petitioner approached the competent authority following the provisions contained in Oriss
a Miscellaneous Certificates Rules, 1984 for grant of a legal heir certificate. The applicatio
n was considered and rejected on the premises that the application does not satisfy the condit
ions under the Rule 3(d) of the Rules, 1984.

¶4

 Rule 3 (d) of the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificates Rules, 1984 reads as follows :

¶5

 (d) Legal heir Certificate shall be granted for limited purposes such as drawal of pen
sion, gratuity, arrears, salaries, Provident Fund, etc. In disputed case involving claims to p
roperty or large amounts the applicants may be advised to approach the Civil Court.

¶6

 Considering the rival contentions of both the parties and looking to the categoric pro
vision, this Court finds there is no scope for grant of a legal heir certificate to the petiti
oner involving the issue of compensation on the ground of death of a person overseas. Therefor
e, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order.

¶7

 However, since the fate of the petitioner in the matter of compensation depends upon p
roduction of a legal heir certificate,

¶8

the petitioner shall not be precluded from approaching the civil forums for getting a declarat
ion to the said the effect.

¶9

 It is made clear that rejection of this petition shall not prevent the petitioner from
 approaching the Civil Court.

¶10

 The writ petition stands dismissed but however with the observation made hereinabove.

¶11

 Biswanath Rath, J.

¶12

Kagaji Paikaray v. Union of India andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kagaji Paikaray v. Union of India andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Vs State

Shibanee Dutta Vs State of Odisha

Choudwar Municipalit Vs State of Orissa

Chitra Vs State

Chandramani Vs Comnr of Land Record

Dhiresh Ku.Panda Vs State of Orissa