A view of the Madras High Court. File photograph
Taking serious note of corrupt practices in issuance of legal heirship certificates, the Madras High Court has ordered criminal prosecution against those who seek such certificates by suppressing vital information, and also against government officials who issue these certificates in collusion with such applicants.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam has directed the Commissioner of Revenue Administration to issue a circular within five weeks instructing all revenue officials across the State to lodge police complaints whenever they come across any application having been filed for a legal heirship certificate without the disclosure of proper information.
The direction was issued while disposing of a writ petition filed by M. Marannan of Coimbatore. The petitioner had challenged an order passed by the Mettupalayam Tahsildar rejecting his request for issuance of a legal heirship certificate to him, pursuant to the death of his father, Maranna Gowder.
During the course of the hearing of the writ petition, Additional Government Pleader U. Bharanidharan told the court that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of having a brother and two sisters while making an application for a legal heirship certificate and therefore, the Tahsildar had refused to issue the certificate to him.
Expressing concern over the court coming across many such cases related to false claims for legal heirship certificates, the judge asked Government Advocate (criminal side) S. Vinoth Kumar to list out the legal provisions under which such applicants, as well as the officials who issue false certificates, could be prosecuted.
Mr. Kumar said, Sections 177 (furnishing false information to a public servant), 182 (furnishing false information with intent to make public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person) and 199 (false statement made in a declaration) of the Indian Penal Code could be invoked against the applicants.
It was also brought to the notice of the court that if the false certificates had been used to take away the property or insurance amount of the deceased, the police could invoke Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the IPC too.
Recording his appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Government Advocate, the judge directed the revenue authorities to promptly lodge criminal complaints against all dishonest applicants. “Unless such penal actions are initiated, it would be very difficult to control the menace,” he remarked.
“If any practice of abetment to commit the offences are identified, then the government officials are also liable to be prosecuted under criminal law,” the judge said and directed the Commissioner of Revenue Administration to warn Tahsildars of disciplinary action if they failed to lodge police complaints against fraudsters.
