PURNIMA RAY Vs. SUSAMARANI RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners. He submits, his clients are the widow, sons and daughters of the deceased. The Tahasildar made order dtd. 2/6/2016 for issuance of legal heir certificate to his clients as well as the person, noted therein as second wife and daughter of the deceased through her. His clients appealed. The Sub-Collector, by impugned order dtd. 10/3/2022 though advised the parties to approach competent civil Court but made observations therein regarding inclusion of said person for purpose of identifying the daughter through her.

(2.) He relies on clause (d) under rule 3 in Orissa Miscellaneous Certificates Rules, 1984 to submit, in event impugned order remains outstanding, the civil Court is likely to be influenced thereby in adjudicating his clients' claim of being the only legal heirs. On query from Court he submits, the daughter through the other woman is also a legal heir.

(3.) Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, there has been subsequent administrative order pursuant to the rules, requiring advice to be given for parties to approach the civil Court.