Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. B. Y. Veena, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, challenging three endorsements all dated 02.06.2018 issued by the Tahasildar/Deputy Tahasildar, Kasaba Hobli, Mudigere Taluk. The endorsements rejected her application for issuance of a Heirship Certificate on the sole ground that she was not residing at Village Kallur presently. The petitioner sought quashing of these endorsements and direction to issue the certificate. The respondent, represented by the learned AGA, opposed the petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy by way of appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under a Circular dated 09.08.2017. However, the Court noted that the impugned endorsements did not mention this alternate remedy. The Court heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the petition papers. The Court found that the ground of non-residence was not a valid reason for rejection of an application for Heirship Certificate, as such certificates are based on revenue records and not on the applicant's current residence. The Court held that the impugned endorsements were unsustainable and quashed them. The Court directed the respondent to issue the Heirship Certificate to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Heirship Certificate - Rejection on Non-Residence Ground - The Tahasildar rejected the petitioner's application for Heirship Certificate solely on the ground that she was not residing in the village at present. The Court held that the ground of non-residence is not a valid reason for rejection, as the Heirship Certificate is based on revenue records and not on residence. The impugned endorsements were quashed and the respondent was directed to issue the certificate within four weeks. (Paras 1-4) B) Alternate Remedy - Writ Jurisdiction - The respondent raised the objection of alternate remedy under Circular dated 09.08.2017. The Court held that since the impugned endorsements did not mention the availability of appeal, and the ground of rejection was patently unsustainable, the writ petition was maintainable. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tahasildar can reject an application for issuance of Heirship Certificate solely on the ground that the applicant is not presently residing in the village, and whether the writ petition is maintainable despite availability of alternate remedy.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsements dated 02.06.2018 (Annexures F, G & H) are quashed. The respondent is directed to issue the Heirship Certificate to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Law Points
- Heirship Certificate
- Non-Residence Ground
- Revenue Records
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Alternate Remedy
- Circular dated 09.08.2017
