1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1394 of 2011 S.Chinnathambi :Appellant/Petitioner -Vs- 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Nilakottai, Dindigul District. 4.Dhanalakshmi, W/o.Late Chandrasekaran. :Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 06.01.2011, made in W.P.(MD) No.2875 of 2010. WP(MD)No.2875/10 Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.01.2010 and direct an enquiry be conducted as to the Authenticity of the respondent No.4's Legal Heir Certificate issued by the respondent No.3 by the proceedings in Pa.Moo.No.36040/2009 A2, dt.29.12.09. For Appellant : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj, 1 to 3 Government Advocate. JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY M.VENUGOPAL, J] The Appellant/petitioner has projected this Writ Appeal as against the order, dated 06.01.2011 in W.P.(MD)No.2875 of 2010, passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.The Appellant/petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 3 to consider his representation, dated 12.01.2010, and to conduct an enquiry as regards the authenticity of the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the 3rd respondent/Tahsidlar, Nilakottai, as per proceedings dated 29.12.2009. 3.It is the case of the Appellant/petitioner that his brother, named Dr.S.Chandrasekaran, expired on 09.07.2009. He was living with the 4th respondent and two children. The 4th respondent left Dr.S.Chandrasekaran long time ago and was residing in Theni District at Cumbum and one child was residing at California and the other was at Chennai. A legal heirship certificate was issued by the 3rd respondent/Tahildar, Nilakottai, mentioning that the 4th respondent/Dhanalakshmi is the legal heir of the deceased Dr.S.Chandrasekaran. 4.The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/petitioner is that the 4th respondent is residing elsewhere. As such, the authenticity of the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar, Nilakottai, has to be decided. The Appellant/petitioner has made a representation to the 3rd respondent. Since there has been no subsequent follow-up action, he has been forced to project the writ petition before this Court. 5.The Learned Single Judge, hearing the arguments of the Learned counsel for the Appellant/petitioner, hearing the Learned Government Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3 and the Learned counsel for the 4th respondent, has come to a resultant conclusion that the 4th respondent is the wife of the deceased Dr.S.Chandrasekaran and therefore it cannot be said that a fresh enquiry should be conducted to decide the authenticity of the legal heirship certificate issued to the 4th respondent. 6.On going through the order, dated 06..01.2011, passed by the Learned Single Judge in the impugned writ petition number W.P.(MD)2875/2010, we are of the considered view that the Learned Single Judge, in paragraph No.4 of his order, has clearly opined that the representation projected by the Appellant/petitioner has been received and the Revenue Divisional Officer has conducted an enquiry on 22.02.2010. Further, though the Appellant/petitioner was asked to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, for the reasons best known to him, he did not attend the enquiry, instead, his son Prabakaran and his brother Thirumalairaj Balaiah have attended the enquiry. Even before any decision being taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the enquiry, the Appellant/petitioner has filed the writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7.The Appellant/petitioner's grievance appears to be on account of different addresses shown in the certificate. According to the Appellant/petitioner, the 4th respondent was residing elsewhere and, therefore, the 3rd respondent/Tahildar, Nilakottai, has no jurisdiction to issue the certificate. 8.It is to be borne in mind that the very case of the Appellant/petitioner stands on the footing that the 4th respondent is the wife of the deceased Dr.S.Chandrasekaran. When that be the case, it is not open to the Appellant/petitioner to approbate and reprobate in the matter without taking a definite stand. On going through the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in the impugned Writ Petition (MD) No.2875/2010, dated 06.01.2011, we are of the considered view that the Appellant/petitioner has not made out any case for interference. 9.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. It is made clear that the dismissal of the wit appeal will not preclude the Appellant/ petitioner from taking recourse to any appropriate proceedings before the competent forum, in the manner known to Law. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Nilakottai, Dindigul District. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.42916. gb RP/27.12.2011/3P/5C. Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1394/2011 Dated:07.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/