1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD) No.1368 of 2011 A.Ravindiran ... Appellant/ Petitioner Vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai South,Madurai. ... Respondent/ Respondent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order, dated 21.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD).No.12117 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Prayer in WP(MD).12117/2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India prayed that this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandaus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.08.2011 and accordingly issue legal heir certificate. For appellant .. Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan For respondent .. Mr.R.Anandharaj, Government Advocate JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.) Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent. 2.By mutual consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final final hearing. 3.This appeal is preferred against the order, dated 21.10.2011, passed by the writ Court in W.P.(MD).No.12117 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking for the relief of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.08.2011. 4.Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has preferred the writ petition only with the limited prayer for a direction to the respondent/Tahsildar to consider his representation, dated 23.08.2011, seeking for the relief of issuance of legal heirship certificate in respect of death of his grandmother. It is contended that inspite of such limited prayer, the writ Court went deep into the matter and held that it is not possible for the respondent/Tahsildar to find out the legal heirs, as the death of the grandmother of the appellant took place in the year 1955 and further suggested that it is for the appellant to approach only the Civil Court to obtain succession certificate. The learned counsel would further contend that the Tahsildar viz., the respondent herein till date has not taken any action or passed any orders on such representation and such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 being the position, the order passed by the writ Court would amount to prejudging the issue. 5.Heard the learned Government Advocate on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ Court, as the writ Court thought that it is not possible for the Tahsildar to find out the legal heirs of the grandmother of the appellant, as the death of the grandmother took place as early as in the year 1955. 6.We are carefully considered the submissions of both sides and also perused the materials available on record. 7.At the outset, it is to be stated that the appellant preferred the writ petition with the prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent/Tahsildar to consider his representation. However, it is seen that the writ Court went deep into the matter and arrived at a conclusion that it is not possible for the Tahsildar viz., the respondent herein to find out the legal heirs of the appellant's grandmother, who died as early as in the year 1955. It is not disputed that till date no orders passed by the respondent/Tahsildar on the representation preferred by the appellant. It goes without saying that in the event of conducting any enquiry, if the Tahsildar comes to the conclusion that it is not possible for him to ascertain the legal heirs, then it is open to the Tahsildar to take a decision of directing the appellant to approach the civil Court, but as on date, no such decision or conclusion arrived at by the respondent. Such being the position, we are of the view that it is not desirable to pass an order, rejecting the relief sought for by the appellant, as pointed out earlier. 8.Hence, we are constrained to set aside the order passed by the writ Court and accordingly, the order, dated 21.10.2011, passed by the writ Court in W.P.(MD).No.12117 of 2011 is set aside. Consequently, this Court, without going into the merits of the representation of the appellant, dated 23.08.2011, constrained to direct the respondent/Tahsildar to consider the representation of the appellant, dated 23.08.2011, by affording opportunity to the appellant and by conducting proper enquiry in the manner known to law and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9.In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Tahsildar, Madurai South, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.V.R.Snamuganathan, Advocate, SR.NO.41366 GH : 07.12.2011 : 2p/3c Judgment in W.A (MD) No.1368 of 2011 22.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/