S.Sathya v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order dated

02.09.2025 passed by the first respondent, whereby the Legal Heir Certificate issued in favour of the third respondent, namely, the first wife of the deceased, and her children came to be cancelled.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent is the first wife of the deceased Chandrasekar, who died on 30.04.2025, leaving behind his first wife, namely the third respondent, and her children, as well as his second wife and the petitioner, who is the daughter born through the second wife. However, the Legal Heir Certificate was issued only in favour of the third respondent and her children, excluding the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent.

3.The first respondent, by the impugned order, set aside the Legal Heir Certificate and relegated the parties to approach the competent Civil Court.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

5.It is seen from the records that, during the enquiry conducted by the second respondent, the third respondent had categorically admitted that the petitioner is the daughter born through the second wife of the deceased and had expressed no objection for inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Legal Heir Certificate. However, ignoring the said admission, the second respondent issued the Legal Heir Certificate excluding the petitioner. Though the first respondent took note of the said aspect and set aside the Legal Heir Certificate, the first respondent ought to have directed the second respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the Legal Heir Certificate instead of relegating the parties to approach the Civil Court. To that extent, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is unsustainable.

6.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the first respondent is hereby set aside. The second respondent is directed to issue a fresh unified Legal Heir Certificate in respect of the deceased Chandrasekar, explicitly including the name of the petitioner along with the third respondent and her children as the legal heirs of the deceased Chandrasekar, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.There shall be no order as to costs.

Index :Yes / No

10.06.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr To

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

2.The Thasildhar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District.

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

cmr

10.06.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR S.Sathya ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. 2.The Thasildhar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District. 3.Muthulakshmi ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Mu.Mu.No.3508/2025/A1 dated 02.09.2025, and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent (Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram) to issue a fresh, unified Legal Heir Certificate for the deceased Late Ra.Chandrasekar, explicitly including the names of the petitioner alongside 3rd respondent's family as the true legal heirs within a stipulated time. For Petitioner :Mr.N.Marimuthu For R1 and R2 :Mr.S.Sivasubramaniam Government Advocate *****