M/s. Chrome Leather Company Ltd. v. The Collector Kancheepuram District Collectorate Kancheepuram & Ors.

WP.No. 33249 of 2007:Calling for the records pertaining to the legal heirsCertificate PA Mu.No. 11805/2001/A-6 dated 5.8.2001 issued by the 2nd respondent to the third respondent and quash the same, respectively. For petitioner : Mr.R.Thiayagarajan, Sr.Counselin both WPs. for Mr.V.BalakrishnanFor respondents : Mr.G.Shankaran, Spl. Govt. Pleader1 & 2 in both WPs. For 3rd respondent: Mr.C.Nambirajin both WPs.COMMON ORDERThe writ petitioner has filed W.P.No.33248 of 2007,challenging the order of the first respondent, DistrictCollector, Kancheepuram dated 26.09.2007 and for direction against the first respondent to cancel the legal heir certificate dated 05.08.2001 issued by the second respondent, Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk in favour of the third respondent, and W.P.No.33249 of 2007 challenging the legal heir certificate issued by the second respondent, Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk in favour of the third respondent.

The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,1913 and the management of the Companywas vested with one George Alexander Chambers, who established the same. According to the petitioner Company, the saidGeorge Alexander Chambers has executed a Will converting his entire business into single limited liability, by sale of assets to the company the consideration being allotment of ordinary and preferential shares of the Company. After the death of the said George Alexander Chambers, certain legal proceedings were initiated and there was some compromise in the year 1965, which was recorded, by which the management of the petitioner Company was vested with the Directors, and thereafter, the Directors of the petitioner Company sold the entire shares to one Mr.Nagappa Chettiar and there was are constitution of Board of Directors with Nagappa Chettiar and his nominees, who took the petitioner Company along with its assets.

The first respondent in the counter affidavit while admitting all the above said factual position, has stated that considering various documents placed on either side, the application of the petitioner was disposed of on 26.09.2007,stating that the Civil Court alone can assess the genuineness of the records produced by the third respondent and directing the petitioner to seek remedy through court of law. It is the further case of the first respondent that the second respondent has issued the legal heir certificate on05.08.2001, based on the documents produced by the third respondent. It is the further case of the first respondent in the counter affidavit that various points raised by the petitioner show that the documents produced by the third respondent are forged documents, and the same are to be verified and the genuineness of the said documents has not been considered by the Tahsildar who, being the competent authority, can only issue the legal heir certificate based on the documents produced before him. 3(a). It is also denied that the enquiry regarding issuance of legal heir certificate was conducted in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contravention of the guidelines issued. It is the further case of the first respondent that inasmuch as there was no application from the direct legal heirs of Late GeorgeAlexander Chambers, the application given by the third respondent was considered for issue of legal heir certificate. It is the case of the first respondent that the correctness of the documents produced before the authorities cannot be decided by them, but the same can be decided only by the CivilCourt and in view of the said legal position, the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, since it was the petitioner, who has made a complaint against the second respondent, in respect of the legal heir certificate issued in favour of the third respondent.

The third respondent in the counter affidavit has stated that Late George Alexander Chambers was having three wives, which was usual in the European community, since he was an employee of East India Company. According to the third respondent, he is the son of K.H.Chambers, who in turn, is the son of Late. George Alexander Chambers through his first wife, viz., Ethel Mary Chambers. The said George AlexanderChambers married Mrs. Margaret Agnes as his second wife, through whom there was only one son viz., Roy Edwin MetcalfChambers. Again, George Alexander Chambers married his third wife, viz., Mrs. Ida L.Chambers, who was issueless. The third respondent has been working as a sailor, settled at Pallavaram, the place where the name of George AlexanderChambers is well known. 4(a). According to the third respondent, he is the only male descendant of George Alexander Chambers and the conduct of the petitioner in taking the entire properties of George Alexander Chambers by ignoring the third respondent, who is the legal heir, is dubious in character.

The writ petitioner has filed a reply affidavit wherein, while reiterating all the facts stated earlier, it is stated that inasmuch as the petitioner is the purchaser and the property has been vested with the petitioner Company in the manner known to law, there cannot be direction to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, since it is only the third respondent, who has made a claim to the second respondent to issue legal heir certificate and therefore, merely because the petitioner has given some representation, it does not mean that the petitioner Company should be made to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, according to the writ petitioner, the impugned orders show that there is total non-application of mind. It is the further case of the petitioner that first and second respondents, being the authorities entrusted with statutory powers, have to perform the same based on the guidelines issued by the Government, and when the grave issue of forgery has been raised, it was the duty of the respondents to conduct fair enquiry and give a finding of the fact.

Mr.R.Thiayagrarajan, learned senior counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appearing for the petitioner would submit that various documents produced by the third respondent to the second respondent for issuance of legal heir certificate prima facieproved to be forged in nature. According to the learned senior counsel, on the basis of the communication by the authorities concerned, who are stated to have issued various certificates produced by the third respondent to the second respondent, the factum of forgery has been proved and therefore, the impugned order of the second respondent dated05.08.2001 has to be set aside. As far as the order of the first respondent dated 26.09.2007 is concerned, the same was not passed by application of mind, especially when this Courthas already directed the first respondent to conduct enquiry and pass orders. According to the learned senior counsel when the second respondent has issued the impugned legal heir certificate dated 05.08.2001, the correctness of which was directed to be enquired by the first respondent, it is strange that the first respondent has directed the second respondent himself to conduct enquiry and submit a report.

On the other hand, Mr.Nambirajan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the petitioner Company itself has approached the Civil court by filing O.S.No.189 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif, Alandur and in such circumstances, the writ petition is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ maintainable. According to him, even though the third respondent has also filed a suit in O.S.No.583 of 2006 for injunction, the same has been withdrawn. He would also rely upon the judgement of the Madras High Court in Surfoji vs. Kamakshiammal and others (ILR (Madras-7) 452) to substantiate his contention that there is no infirmity in the Collector'sorder. He would also rely upon Section 48 of the SuccessionAct to contend that being the nearest relative of GeorgeAlexander Chambers, the third respondent is entitled to claimas the legal heir of George Alexander Chambers. He would also submit that the second respondent has issued a legal heir certificate on 05.08.2001 and after the lapse of six years, the validity of the said certificate is challenged and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed onlaches. His further submission is that since the petitioner itself has resorted to the Civil Court, the writ petitions have to be dismissed as infructuous.

He would submit that by filing these writ petitions the petitioner only wants to decide about the title in respect of the property, which cannot be done. His further submissionis that what is given by the second respondent is only arelationship certificate, which has no legal consequence at all, unless the civil Court gives a final verdict. He would also rely upon a decision of the Company Law Board reported in1992 (7) Company Law 189 (CLB) to contend that once a legalheirship of the third respondent is considered, it is the duty of the petitioner Company to transmit the shares and according to him, since the petitioner is stated to have purchased the assets belonging to George Alexander Chambers, the third respondent is entitled to get the legal heir certificate and make a claim against the petitioner based on the said certificate. He would also submit that since the petitioner has approached the civil Court, it has to wait till the civilCourt decides the issue and the relationship certificate issued by the second respondent has no legal consequence.

I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and respondents and perused the entire records and given my anxious thoughts to various points raised by the respective counsel.

On perusal of the entire documents, the following facts which are relevant for the purpose of this case can be culled out. George Alexander Chambers appears to be the original owner of vast extent of properties in JameenPallavaram Village by virtue of purchase in a public auction https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in 1913, which was subsequently confirmed in certain insolvency proceedings and sale deed was executed in hisfavour on 17.11.1917 by the Official Assignee, High Court, Madras. The said George Alexander Chambers married EthelMary Chambers, through whom, he had one son and two daughters, viz., K.H.Chambers, Mrs. Fellice Dora and Mrs. Sheela Florence. The third respondent in these writ petitions, viz., GeorgeJoseph Chambers, is the son of the said K.H.Chambers. Thesaid first wife of George Alexander Chambers, viz., EthelMary Chambers died on 23.03.1924. 10 (a). The George Alexander Chambers appears to have run some business, as Chrome Leather Company, dealing with manufacture of leather products.

It is seen that based on the said certificate issued by the second respondent, the third respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.583 of 2006 on the file of DistrictMunsif Court, Alandur for permanent injunction against the present Directors of the petitioner Company from interfering or trespassing into the property to an extent of 1.16 acres in Survey No.519/1A and 520/2A situated at Chromepet village, Tambaram Taluk. Even though the learned counsel for the third respondent Mr.Nambirajan has submitted that the third respondent has withdrawn the said suit, there is no such proof filed before the Court, since the same is disputed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

It is also seen on record that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.189 of 2007 against the third respondent and another person for permanent injunction restraining the third respondent and another from interfering with the petitioner'spossession in the total extent of 79.24 acres of land situated at No.103, Tiruneermalai Village, on the basis that the petitioner Company has become the owner of the property under due process of law and the same is pending.

The petitioner made representation to the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, District Collector on 19.05.2007, informing the first respondent that the second respondent has issued the legal heir certificate without conducting detailed enquiry asto the veracity and truthfulness of various documents and statements given by the third respondent and therefore, requested for re-enquiry, after giving personal hearing and pass appropriate orders. Since the first respondent has not passed any orders, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing W.P.No.25475 of 2007 and this Court while disposing of the writ petition by order dated 27.07.2007, has directed the first respondent, District Collector, Kancheepuram to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 19.05.2007, on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The operative portion of which reads thus: "4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted in entirety. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his relief to the extent of directing the first respondent to dispose of the representation, without going into the merits of the case and without prejudice to the rights of the third respondent, who was issued with the legal heir certificate by the second respondent after conducting enquiry, I direct the first respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 19.05.2007 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the third respondent as well. "

It was thereafter, the first respondent has passed the order dated 26.09.2007, which is impugned by the petitioner in W.P.No.33248 of 2007. A reading of the impugned order of the first respondent dated 26.09.2007 shows that after the direction of this Court, both the petitioner as well as the third respondent have appeared before the first respondent on 27.08.2007 and submitted their written arguments with various copies of documents. It is also seen that the first respondent, District Collector has directed the Tahsildar, Tambaram, viz., the second respondent to conduct adetailed enquiry and submit his report. The second respondent is stated to have submitted his report dated 14.09.2007 to the first respondent, District Collector. Thereafter, the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, District Collector, has referred to the guidelines issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department in his letterNo.1534 dated 28.11.1991, for issuance of legal heir certificate and after considering the same, passed the impugned order in the following words: "5. The following points are observed while perusing all connected records. (a) In the instant case there are more than one wife to the deceased and there is aproperty dispute between the legal heirs. (b) Except Mr.G.A.Chambers, otherlegalheirs are not living in Kanchipuram District. As per the guidelines issued by the SpecialCommissioner and Commissioner and Secretary to Government, such cases cannot be dealt with by the Revenue authorities. Only competent Civil Court alone could establish the genuineness of the records produced by the G.J.Chambers. In view of the facts mentioned in para 5 above, the petitioner isinformed to seek remedy through a Court of law. "Therefore, the reasoning given by the first respondent in directing the petitioner to seek remedy through Court of law is that George Alexander Chambers had more than one wife and there is a property dispute between the legal heirs and that as per the guidelines issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, such cases cannot be dealt with by Revenue Department.

It is not in much dispute that as on date, what are to be followed by the Tahsildars for issuance of legal heir certificate are the guidelines as per the letter of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department in letter No.1534 dated28.11.1991. A reference to the said letter along with theannexure which provides for various guidelines makes the following points clear: (i) In respect of direct legal heirs, the legal heir certificate should be issued by the Tahsildar by following the existing practice; (ii) In respect of the persons who are not direct legal heirs; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) In cases where the deceased person was having more than one wife or husband, having children and among them there is partition dispute which is revealed during enquiry; (b) In cases where a person was not seen for7 years and therefore, he should be presumed to have died, which results in the issuance of legal heir certificate; (c) In cases where the person who has applied for legal heir certificate is not living within the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar or not having any properties and failed to appear before the Tahsildar for enquiry; and(d)In cases where the deceased person was not having any children, but he was adopting a child; in all the above said cases, the Tahsildar shall avoid issuing legal heir certificate and direct the concerned petitioner to approach the Civil Court; (iii) In respect of direct legal heirs, who apply for issuance of legal heir certificate along with death certificate on payment of necessary charges, the Tahsildar, shall refer the same to the RevenueOfficer for enquiry.

As stated above, by various legal proceedings, the Will executed by George Alexander Chambers dated 18.12.1930was probated in the High Court in the year 1938, by which the said George Alexander Chambers has nominated his third wifeMrs. Ida L.Chambers to succeed him and his properties and thereafter, by the subsequent legal proceedings, the saidMrs. Ida L.Chambers and Roy Edwin Metcalf Chambers, the only son of the second wife of George Alexander Chambers, viz.,Mrs. Margaret Agnes, have divided the properties and the same have been sold to the petitioner Company by means of various process stated above.

It is also clear that even as on date the third respondent, who claims in his counter affidavit that the conduct of Mrs. Ida L.Chambers was fraudulent and she played deception towards George Alexander Chambers, has not taken any legal steps against Mrs. Ida L.Chambers, especially in the circumstances that the said Roy Edwin Metcalf Chambers filed various cases which ultimately have been settled and after the settlement, the properties have been sold under due process of law either by auction or otherwise, which was approved by the Court subsequently, and therefore, it is clear that the third respondent has chosen to raise his voice for the first time only with an eye over the property of George AlexanderChambers.

A reference to the report of the Tahsildar dated14.09.2007 submitted as per the direction of the first respondent, District Collector, Kancheepuram, based on which the District Collector has passed the impugned order dated26.09.2007, shows in clear terms the intention of the third respondent in having an eye on the property of GeorgeAlexander Chambers and also categorically finding that Mrs. IdaL.Chambers is only a Step Grandmother of the third respondent. However, the Tahsildar has chosen to state that issuance of legal heir certificate is a prerogative of the Tahsildar. Theoperative portion of the report of the second respondent dated14.09.2007, reads thus: "9. My reply to the above three points are: (i) There may be some infirmities in the enquiry records, but that alone should not disqualify the certificate. (ii) This Suit O.S.No.583/2006 related to the period 2006 whereas the certificate was issued during2001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)Ida L.Chambers was the Step grand mother to George Joseph Chambers. This IdaL.Chambers had no issue. Normally GeorgeJoseph Chambers is the grand son ofG.A.Chambers with Ethel Marry Chambers. But the property's were in the name of IdaL.Chambers. Having an eye on the propertyGeorge Joseph Chambers claimed as grand son to G.A.Chambers with Ida L.Chambers. Tahsildar has also issued the certificate on the same line. Further my submission is issue of legal heirship certificate is the prerogative of the Tahsildar. "

As per the genealogical order, which has been stated earlier, the petitioner is the son of K.H.Chambers, who was born to George Alexander Chambers through his first wifeMrs. Ethel Mary Chambers. Admittedly, George AlexanderChambers has married second wife, viz., Mrs. Margaret Agnes, after the death of his first wife and through her, a son was born by name Roy Edwin Metcalf Chambers, as stated above and after the death of the second wife, George Alexander Chambersmarried Mrs. Ida L.Chambers as third wife on 18.12.1930,through whom there are no issues. In view of the facts stated above, viz., that George Alexander Chambers executed a Willbequeathing his properties to his third wife, Mrs. IdaL.Chambers and subsequent developments as stated above, it is clear that the third respondent cannot claim himself to be adirect legal heir of Mrs. Ida L.Chambers, since the property stood only in her name as per the Will of George AlexanderChambers. He can at the most be a grandson of GeorgeAlexander Chambers, born to his son, who was born through his first wife. Inasmuch as the properties of George AlexanderChambers have been transferred to Mrs. Ida L.Chambers by testamentary succession, as per the guidelines, the second respondent, Tahsildar ought to have directed the third respondent to approach the Civil Court, before issuing the legal heir certificate dated 05.08.2001.

Even assuming that the second respondent at the time of applying for legal heir certificate in 2001 was not informed by the third respondent of the fact that GeorgeAlexander Chambers married three wives, in the light of the subsequent report of the second respondent dated 14.09.2007,wherein the second respondent has clearly stated the above https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said entire facts, it was the duty on the part of the first respondent to apply the guidelines and the first respondent ought to have cancelled the legal heir certificate issued by the second respondent dated 05.08.2001 and directed the third respondent, who has applied for the legal heir certificate to approach the civil Court. Strangely, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 26.09.2007, directing the petitioner to approach the civil Court, which is not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the SpecialCommissioner and Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department dated 28.11.1991. The petitioner Companyhas never applied for legal heir certificate and therefore, there is absolutely no necessity for directing the petitioner to approach the civil Court.

The contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.189 of 2007, which is for injunction against the third respondent from interfering with the possession of the petitioner Company, and therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to continue the suit and after decision, the validity of the legal heir certificate issued by the second respondent dated 05.08.2001 can be decided, has absolutely no basis. On the other hand, the suit in O.S.No.583 of 2006 was filed by the third respondent against the petitioner and itsDirectors for injunction on the basis that he is a legal heir of George Alexander Chambers or a person entitled as a"relative" of Mrs. Ida L.Chambers as per the Succession Act and the same can be decided on its own merit and it cannot be said that in the meantime the legal heir certificate issued by the second respondent dated 05.08.2001 should remain valid. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced acertified copy of the proceedings before the District MunsifCourt, Alandur in O.S.No.583 of 2006, stating that the suit is posted on 03.01.2008, therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for 3rd respondent that the suit was withdrawn may not be correct.

It is relevant to point out the submission of the learned counsel for the third respondent that the legal heir certificate issued by the second respondent has no legal consequence. If that is so, it is not known as to how the third respondent has filed the suit based on the said certificate issued by the 2nd respondent. As per the guidelines issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissionerand Secretary to Government, Revenue Department dated28.11.1991, it is only the third respondent who should have been directed to approach the Civil Court and by no stretch of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ imagination the writ petitioner, who is the Company acquired the property and its shares in the manner known to law can bedirected to approach the civil Court to declare that the petitioner Company is the lawful owner.

By virtue of the above said Will of GeorgeAlexander Chambers and subsequent probate and legal proceedings, including the Will of Mrs. Ida L.Chambers, which are continuous for nearly 50 years, certainly a presumption can be drawn under Section 114 of the Indian EvidenceAct,1872, as held by the Supreme Court in Ambika Prasad Thakurand other vs. Ram Ekbal Rai (dead) by his legal representatives and others (AIR 1966 SC 605). The operative portion of the judgement is as follows: "15. ..... The question is whether such an inference should be drawn. Now, if a thing or astate of things is shown to exist, an inference ofit continuity within a reasonably proximate time both forwards and backwards may sometimes be drawn. The presumption of future continuance is noticed in illustration (d) to S.114 of the Indian EvidenceAct, 1872. In appropriate cases, an inference of the continuity of a thing or state of things backwards may be drawn under this section, though on this point the section does not give a separate illustration. ......"

It is also well settled that the certificate issued by the Revenue Officials does not affect the right accrued to a person under law, as it was held inN.Dhanalakshmi vs. The District Revenue Officer (2002 (2) CTC228), wherein E.Padmanabhan,J. has held as follows: "3. Consequently, the 3rd respondent had moved the first respondent. The first respondent had remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and disposal. This order dated 6.9.1996 is being challenged. This order on the face of it cannot be sustained. But at any rate this Courtneed not go into the validity of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar or for that matter the order passed by the 1st respondent herein. There is no provision which had conferred power on the RevenueAuthorities such as Tahsildar, Revenue DivisionalOfficer, District Revenue Officer to decide as to who is the legal heir or who is the successor f adeceased individual. In case of dispute as to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ succession or inheritance the parties have to before the competent civil court. The Competent civil court is bound to decide the dispute as to who is the legal heir and who is entitled to the properties or assets left by the deceased. The Certificates, if any issued by the Revenue Officer like Tahsildarand Revenue Divisional Officer will not in any manner affect the rights accrued to the individualby way of succession. It is open to the petitioner or the third respondent to go before the competent civil court and establish their rights and it is totally unnecessary to challenge the orders passed by the 1st respondent herein by filing the writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as the entire action is misconceived. It is unfortunate that so many persons like petitioner had been driven to the Revenue Officers like Tahsildar for legal heir certificates, which has no sanctity in law. Withthese directions, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.No.16871 of 1997 is also dismissed. "

In the present case, the petitioner Company has been in continuous possession of the property by virtue of the legal process stated above and that cannot be affected by the legal heir certificate issued by the first and second respondents. In any event, in the present case as stated above, the impugned orders of respondents 1 and 2 are in blatant violation of the guidelines issued by the SpecialCommissioner and Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department dated 28.11.1991, which are having legal force in respect of the procedure to be followed while issuing legal heir certificate.

In view of the above said facts and for not following the procedure as laid down in the guidelines, I do not think any useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter back to the first or second respondents for proper enquiry. Further, on the factual situation of the present case, applying the above guidelines, the first or second respondent should have necessarily directed the third respondent to approach the Civil court to prove that he is entitled to inherit the properties of George AlexanderChambers, which have been bequeathed by him to Mrs. IdaL.Chambers and it is only thereafter, he will have any right over the properties at all. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

It is, in order to adjudicate the issue finally, not sticking on to the technicalities, I am of the considered view that the matter need not be again remitted back to the first and second respondents for the purpose of passing order afresh directing the third respondent to approach the Civilcourt as per the guidelines. This view has been affirmed by this Court in V.Veronickammal vs. The Director of SchoolEducation and others (1997 (2) L.W. 538), whereinAR.Lakshmanan,J. (as he then was) has held as follows: "10. In my opinion, the 1st respondent without applying his mind to the specific directions issued by this Court, has passed the order on 25.9.1996. Itis not proper for persons like the 1st respondent to indulge in hair-splitting approach and find an escape for defeating the rights of the applicant. It is settled law that a Court of justice should, if it could, adjudicate finally and not leave the door ajar for parties to litigate again. In his high time the Government and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating the legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. "

The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the third respondent Mr.Nambirajan, viz., judgement of the SupremeCourt in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Qimat Rai Guptaand others (2007 (7) SCC 309) has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. That was relating to the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,1957, in respect of assessment, wherein the Supreme Court has held that, when an order of assessment has been communicated with the signature of the authority, the said order is ordinarily presumed to have been made on the date when it is signed. In the present case, the impugned orders of the first and second respondents are made in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government regarding the issuance of legal hair certificate.

The other judgement relied upon by him is, Reliance Industries Ltd., vs. Gujarat State InformationCommission & Others (AIR 2007 Gujarat 203), which also relates to the powers of Information Commissioner under Right to Information Act and has no relevance to the facts of the case on hand.

Again, the judgement of the Madhya Pradesh HighCourt in Ashish Kumar and another vs. Leela Bai and others https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (AIR 2002 Madhya Pradesh 150) relied upon by him, relates to Section 372 of Succession Act, wherein the High Court has found that in the matter of grant of Succession Certificate, the petition and the revision were rejected and therefore, there was a concurrent finding of fact that the applicants were not husband and son of the deceased, and therefore, held that the proper remedy is to file a declaratory suit in civilCourt, holding that the decision of Succession Court in the matter of issue of succession certificate is no way final or binding on the parties.

The other judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the third respondent was rendered by the OrissaHigh Court in Binod Sahu and another vs. Smt. Chandrama Sahuand others (AIR 2003 Orissa 11), which also relates to Section372 of Succession Act, and it has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

As far as the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner about the genuineness of various documents filed by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent for obtaining legal heirship certificate, whether they are forged or not, it is not proper for the Court at this stage to express any opinion especially when it is the civil Courtwhich has to ultimately decide the entire issue.

In view of the above said factual and legal position, the writ petitions stand allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders of the first and second respondents dated26.09.2007 and 05.08.2001 respectively are quashed and setaside. However, it is open to the third respondent to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate remedies. No costs. In view of disposal of the main writ petitions, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.khSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Collector Kancheepuram District Collectorate Kancheepuram. 2. The Tahsildar Tambaram Taluk Kancheepuram District Tambaram 600 045.+ 3 Css to Mr. V. Balakrishnan, Advocte sR 4623+ One cc to Govt Pleader SR 4702+ 4 Ccs to Mr. C. Nambiraj, Advocate sR 4682VSV (co)sg 04/02/08P.D.Common Order inW.P.Nos.33248&33249 of 2007 Dated:01.02.2008