Shivani Thakur
Published on: June 25, 2022 at 16:05 IST
Madras High Court decided upon the powers of a Tahsildar to issue a Legal Heirship Certificate in matters of intestate-succession for Class-II heirs.
The Bench stated that the numerous personal laws govern the idea of heirship. Therefore, the Tahsildar’s Legal Heirship Certificate has no bearing on any party’s legal right that was granted to him or her under personal laws.
It observed,
“Tahsildar and the Revenue Inspector cannot be expected to go on a wild goose chase hunting for the heirs of the deceased armed with the table of sharers from Mulla on Mohammedan Law or a manual prescribing the mode of distribution contemplated under Parts II and III of Chapter V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. We cannot expand the functions of the Tahsildar from those of a purely administrative to a quasi-judicial character, as that would lead to total chaos and proliferate litigation.”
It also said that,
The “legal heir” certificate issued by the Tahsildar does not determine the status of any party as an heir of the deceased. This status is conferred on an individual under his/her personal law, and cannot be altered by mere executive instructions such as a circular.”
In Tamil Nadu, the Revenue authorities like Tahsildars were issuing legal heirship certificates on the basis of inquiries conducted by Revenue Inspectors, Village Administrative officers, etc.
In 1991, the Special Commissioner for Revenue Administration issued a letter prescribing guidelines for the issuance of certificates.
A circular providing specific instructions for the issuance of legal heirship certificates was also released in 2017 by the Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Revenue Administration. The Tahsildar was not permitted to provide certifications for a number of categories under this circular.
Several courts around the nation have heard arguments against the Tahsildar’s authority to grant legal heirship certificates to Class-II legal heirs.
According to the petitioner, it is untrue that the Revenue Department lacks the authority to issue legal heirship certificates. According to the argument, these circulars were supported by sanctions, and disobeying them would result in disciplinary action.
A legal heirship certificate, according to the petitioners, just acknowledges an already-existing right; it does not confer any additional rights.
A legitimate heirship certificate could only be provided when an investigation was complete and after reviewing the Revenue inspector’s report, according to the state’s submission made by Additional Advocate General Mr. Neelakandan. Finding Class-II legal heirs presented practical challenges as well.
The 2017 and 2019 circulars, according to Mr. Sharath Chandran, Amicus Curiae, were essentially executive orders and not laws in the sense of Article 13 of the Constitution. The Tahsildar had to abide by these in terms of administration.
He further emphasised the distinction between the Succession certificate provided by the court and the Legal Heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar.
The Court noted that the certificate said nothing more than what the Tahsildar thought about the link between the petitioner and the people listed therein and the dead. It could not change the legal heir position that the personal laws had granted him.
The 2019 circular, which permitted fathers to seek for legal heirship certificates while also prohibiting the Tahsildar from granting certificates to Class-II Heirs, was also noted by the court as having contradictory positions.
“Surely, it takes nothing more than modest common sense and practical experience to understand that it is easier to ascertain the relationship of an applicant like a father rather than an applicant who is the “son of a predeceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter”. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the so called rationale for exclusion of persons like a father of the deceased is wholly illogical.”
Court opined that the Judiciary did not have the manageable standard to enter this area and as such, it was purely within the remit of the executive.
The Court held that the Government orders were made in the exercise of executive power and thus the power of the Tahsildar was not without legal sanction.
The Court held that there was a difference between the Succession certificate issued under Part X of the Indian Succession Act and the Legal Heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar.