High Court Kerala High Court

Joseph Samson vs The Village Officer on 24 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Joseph Samson vs The Village Officer on 24 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26653 of 2010(F)


1. JOSEPH SAMSON,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.B.DAYAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :24/09/2010

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
                    -------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C)No.26653           Of 2010
              -----------------------------------------------------
      DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010

                                JUDGMENT

Challenge in this Writ Petition is against Exhibit P6, an

order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting an application made

by the petitioner for issuance of a legal heirship certificate.

According to the petitioner, he is the only legal heir of his

deceased parents. It is stated that when application was made,

enquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent and in Exhibit P5

report submitted, the 1st respondent confirmed that the petitioner

is the only legal heir. Complaint is that, despite the above, by

Exhibit P6, the 2nd respondent rejected the request on the ground

that the purpose for obtaining legal heirship certificate is to get

certain documents released and that for the said purpose legal

heirship certificate cannot be issued.

2. In my view, when an application is made, irrespective

of the purpose, an order is to be passed in the light of the

materials available. If, as stated by the petitioner, Exhibit P5 is

the only report available and there is nothing to indicate that the

petitioner is not the legal heir, there is no reason why the 2nd

W.P.(C)No.26653/10 -2-

respondent should have rejected the application in the manner

which is done in Exhibit P1. Therefore, I set aside Exhibit P6 and

direct the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter duly

adverting to Exhibit P5 submitted by the 1st respondent. This

shall be done, at any rate, within four months from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the

Writ Petition.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

dsn