1 2026:CGHC:15900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4593 of 2021 1 - Ku. Khushi Sarthi D/o Late Shri Lal Bahadur Sarthi Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Guardian Grand Mother Smt. Bhagwati Bai Sarthi W/o Late Shri Gangadhar Sarthi Aged About 52 Years R/o Naharpara Ward No. 06, Lailunga, Thana Lailunga District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lailunga District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Swarnlata Chouhan W/o Unknown Aged About 27 Years Progressive Computer Center, Second Floor, Near Budi Mai Mandir, Yojas Yog Mandir Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Minor Pari D/o Swarnlata Chouhan Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Swarnlata Chouhan R/o Progressive Computer Center, Second Floor, Near Budi Mai Mandir, Yojas Yog Mandir Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Caust-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 5 & 6 : Mr. Utkarsh Shrivas, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 07/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the Impugned order dated 24.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no.2. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to issue an appropriate writ by directing the respondent No. 3 to 4 to not provide any amount in favor of the respondent No. 5. 10.3 That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representation of petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, a minor citizen of India, has instituted the present petition through her grandmother, who is her lawful guardian and caretaker. Following the demise of the petitioner’s father, she is wholly dependent upon her grandmother for her livelihood and upbringing. The petitioner’s grandfather, Late Shri Gangadhar Sarthi, was employed as a Head Master and died in harness on 28.03.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father, Shri Lal Bahadur Sarthi, applied for compassionate appointment with due consent of the family, 3 including Smt. Bhagwati Bai. The competent department considered his application and granted him appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-II in the Education Department vide order dated 03.11.2011. During his service tenure, the petitioner’s father duly nominated the petitioner as his nominee in official service records. The said nomination was consistently reflected in all relevant documents, including the nomination forms submitted by him in February 2020, thereby recognizing the petitioner as the rightful beneficiary of his service benefits. Subsequently, Shri Lal Bahadur Sarthi fell ill and was admitted to the Community Health Centre, Lailunga, where he succumbed to his illness on 12.04.2020. After his demise, the department released an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family, which was received through the petitioner’s grandmother. After the death of the petitioner’s father, respondent No. 5 surfaced and claimed herself to be the second wife of the deceased. She filed an application dated 26.02.2021 before the competent authority seeking issuance of a succession certificate and also applied for compassionate appointment. The petitioner contends that respondent No. 5 was never known to the family, did not participate in the last rites of the deceased, and has falsely asserted her status by allegedly producing forged and fabricated documents to claim rights over the deceased’s estate. Upon publication of notice in the said proceedings, the petitioner’s 4 grandmother appeared before the concerned authority and filed detailed objections opposing the claim of respondent No. 5 for grant of succession certificate. The objections were duly submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer called for a report from the concerned Patwari, who submitted a report along with a Panchanama indicating respondent No. 5 as the second wife of the deceased and respondent No. 6 as their daughter. Thereafter, the learned Tahsildar recorded the statements of respondent No. 5 and her witnesses on 23.07.2021. However, the petitioner and her guardian were not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or present their case. It was recorded in the order sheet that the objector was absent, and based on the Patwari report, the matter was forwarded to the Court of Additional Collector for issuance of succession certificate. Notably, one of the witnesses, namely Ahilya Chauhan, stated that the alleged marriage took place on 12.04.2020, though no documentary proof of such marriage was produced. The learned Additional Collector, instead of issuing a certificate of legal heirs, proceeded to issue a succession certificate vide order dated 24.08.2021. Based on the said succession certificate, respondent No. 5 submitted applications before the concerned departmental authorities for release of death benefits and for grant of compassionate appointment. Upon gaining knowledge of these developments, the 5 petitioner submitted detailed objections and representations before the Block Education Officer, District Education Officer, and the Collector, requesting that no benefits or appointment be granted to respondent No. 5, as she is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased and her name does not appear in the family declaration records. Despite the absence of proof of marriage and the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Additional Collector in issuing the succession certificate, respondent No. 5 has proceeded to claim service benefits and compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by these actions and the impugned order dated 24.08.2021, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and thus liable to be set aside. It is contended that the succession certificate has been issued by the learned Additional Collector, which is beyond the scope of his statutory authority. Under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, the power to issue a succession certificate is exclusively vested in the competent Civil Court, and the Additional Collector can, at best, issue a certificate of legal heirs. Therefore, the impugned action suffers from a fundamental jurisdictional error and is nullity in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the procedure adopted by the authorities is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Tahsildar, while recording 6 proceedings on 23.07.2021, failed to provide any opportunity to the petitioner or her guardian to examine or cross-examine the witnesses produced by respondent No. 5. The order sheet merely records the absence of the objector and proceeds to rely upon the statements of respondent No. 5 and her witnesses. On the basis of such unilateral proceedings and the Patwari report, the matter was forwarded, culminating in the impugned order, thereby rendering the entire process arbitrary and unfair. Learned counsel further contends that the claim of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is unsupported by any official record. Their names do not find mention in the service records of Late Shri Lal Bahadur Sarthi, nor were they nominated as beneficiaries at any point of time. In contrast, the petitioner was duly recorded as nominee, which clearly establishes her status as the legitimate claimant to the service benefits of the deceased employee. It is also argued that respondent No. 5 has failed to produce any cogent or documentary evidence to substantiate her alleged marriage with the deceased. Although a plea of court marriage has been taken, no documentary proof has been placed on record before the competent authority. In absence of such proof, her claim remains unverified and cannot form the basis for grant of any legal or financial entitlement. Learned counsel emphasizes that during the lifetime of the deceased, the petitioner had never seen respondent Nos. 5 and 6 residing with or associated with her father. Even at 7 the time of his death and funeral rites, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were conspicuously absent, which further casts serious doubt on the veracity of their claims. It is next submitted that the petitioner’s father himself was appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, and therefore, upon his demise, any consideration for compassionate appointment must necessarily take into account the consent and dependency of the immediate family, particularly the petitioner and her grandmother. However, respondent No. 5 has sought to secure such appointment solely on the basis of the impugned succession certificate, which itself has been issued without jurisdiction and is thus legally unsustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is vitiated on account of non-consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner and her grandmother. Despite filing detailed objections, the authorities neither adjudicated upon them nor afforded an opportunity of hearing. The report was mechanically submitted by the Tahsildar and SDO, and on the very same day, the Additional Collector proceeded to issue the succession certificate without calling for any verification from the concerned department where the deceased was employed. In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law. The same deserves to be quashed as being without jurisdiction, violative of natural justice, and unsustainable 8 in the eyes of law. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. It is contended that the concerned Additional Collector, after due consideration and perusal of the documents placed on record by the respective parties, has passed the impugned order in a lawful manner. It is further submitted that the certificate issued pursuant to the said order is not, in fact, a “succession certificate” in the strict legal sense as contemplated under the Indian Succession Act, but is merely a certificate denoting the names of the legal heirs of the deceased. As such, the authority exercised by the Additional Collector falls well within his administrative competence, and the challenge on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is misconceived. Learned State counsel further submits that the proceedings before the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer were conducted after following due procedure. Opportunity was duly afforded to all concerned parties, including the petitioner; however, it is evident from the order sheet dated 23.07.2021 that the objector chose not to remain present at the relevant stage. In such circumstances, the authorities were left with no option but to proceed on the basis of the material available on record, including the statements of respondent No. 5 and her witnesses as well as the Patwari report. 9 Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any violation of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the Patwari report, along with the Panchanama, clearly indicates respondent No. 5 as the wife of the deceased and respondent No. 6 as his daughter. The said report was prepared after due local inquiry and carries evidentiary value. The competent authority, upon appreciation of such material, has rightly taken the same into consideration while arriving at its conclusion. Learned State counsel further contends that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding non-inclusion of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the service records or nomination forms of the deceased does not conclusively determine their legal status. It is argued that nomination in service records is limited in its scope and does not override the rights of legal heirs as determined under personal law or on the basis of factual inquiry conducted by the competent authority. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s allegations regarding absence of proof of marriage and non-participation of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the last rites are matters of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The competent authority, having considered the available material, has recorded its satisfaction, and such findings do not warrant interference unless shown to be perverse or wholly arbitrary. Learned State counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the reports 10 submitted by the Tahsildar and the SDO, and there is no illegality in relying upon such reports. It is denied that the objections of the petitioner were ignored; rather, it is contended that the same were duly noted, but in absence of supporting evidence, the authority proceeded to decide the matter on merits. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel contends that the impugned order is just, proper, and within the jurisdiction of the authority concerned. The certificate issued merely reflects the names of the legal heirs based on inquiry and does not amount to a succession certificate under the statutory scheme. Hence, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 adopts and supports the submissions advanced by the learned State counsel and further submits that the impugned order has been passed after due application of mind and upon proper appreciation of the material available on record. It is contended that the concerned Additional Collector has rightly exercised his authority in issuing the certificate, which merely reflects the names of the legal heirs of the deceased and does not amount to a succession certificate in the strict legal sense. Therefore, the allegation regarding lack of jurisdiction is wholly misconceived and untenable. It is further submitted that the proceedings before the revenue authorities were conducted in accordance with established procedure. Adequate opportunity was afforded to all 11 concerned parties, including the petitioner and her guardian. However, as is evident from the record, the petitioner failed to effectively participate in the proceedings at the relevant stage, and hence cannot now turn around and allege violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that the findings recorded by the authorities are based on the Patwari report and Panchanama, which clearly establish respondent No. 5 as the wife of the deceased and respondent No. 6 as his daughter. The said report was prepared after due inquiry at the local level and has rightly been relied upon by the competent authority while passing the impugned order. It is also contended that mere non- mention of the names of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the service records or nomination forms of the deceased cannot negate their legal status. Nomination in service records is not determinative of succession or inheritance rights, and the same cannot override the factual and legal position emerging from the inquiry conducted by the competent authority. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact, particularly with regard to the marital status of respondent No. 5 and her relationship with the deceased. Such issues require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The competent authority, after considering the statements of witnesses and other materials, has arrived at a plausible conclusion, which does not call for interference by this Court. It is lastly submitted 12 that the impugned order is legal, valid, and has been passed within the framework of law. There is no procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, be dismissed and the impugned order be upheld. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record. 7. The primary issue which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the learned Additional Collector had the jurisdiction to issue the certificate in question and whether the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 is sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. From a careful perusal of the impugned order as well as the material available on record, it appears that the learned Additional Collector has proceeded to issue what has been termed as a “succession certificate” in favour of respondent No. 5. The stand taken by the State as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is that the said certificate is merely in the nature of a legal heir certificate and not a succession certificate as contemplated under law. However, the contents and tenor of the order itself indicate that the authority has exercised powers akin to that of granting a succession certificate. 9. It is well settled that the field relating to grant of succession certificate is specifically governed by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, wherein a detailed mechanism has been provided 13 under Section 372 and allied provisions. The said statutory scheme clearly vests the jurisdiction to grant succession certificates exclusively with the competent Civil Court. The revenue authorities, including the Additional Collector, do not possess any power or authority under the said Act to issue such certificate. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the learned Additional Collector has not considered this crucial jurisdictional aspect. The order has been passed without adverting to the statutory limitation on his authority and without examining whether he was competent to grant such a certificate. The exercise of power, therefore, suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction. 11. In matters relating to jurisdiction, it is trite law that an order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be sustained, irrespective of the merits of the claim or the material considered. Even if it is assumed that certain inquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar or the SDO, the same cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Additional Collector to grant a succession certificate, which is otherwise within the exclusive domain of the Civil Court. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law on account of lack of jurisdiction alone. This Court, however, refrains from entering into the 14 disputed questions of fact with regard to the status of respondent No. 5 as wife of the deceased or the entitlement of the parties, as the same are matters which may be appropriately adjudicated before a competent forum in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional Collector is quashed as it suffers from jurisdictional error, as the power to grant succession certificate is vested with the competent Civil Court under the relevant statute and not with the revenue authorities. 13. It is made clear that the parties shall be at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE