Kin not at same place? Can’t junk family tree cert: Karnataka HC

The circulars issued by the government concerning genealogy certificates are only to be read as a guiding factor and not beyond, the court noted.
Justice M G S Kamal passed the order while allowing the petition filed by B S Abhinandan Kumar challenging the rejection of his application seeking genealogy of his family consisting of 11 members on December 27, 2021
Justice M G S Kamal passed the order while allowing the petition filed by B S Abhinandan Kumar challenging the rejection of his application seeking genealogy of his family consisting of 11 members on December 27, 2021File Photo.
Updated on: 
2 min read

BENGALURU: Noting that declining to issue a genealogy or family tree or survivors certificate despite no objections or disputes found during the local inspection or enquiry is arbitrary, the Karnataka High Court held that the genealogy application cannot be rejected merely because descendants of the deceased or members of the family are residing in different places and not within the jurisdictional authority that issues such a certificate.

Justice M G S Kamal passed the order while allowing the petition filed by B S Abhinandan Kumar challenging the rejection of his application seeking genealogy of his family consisting of 11 members on December 27, 2021, by the Sub Divisional Tahsildar of Bengaluru South taluk, on the premise that he was not furnishing documents about address proof of his family members as well as the death certificates of the deceased members of his family.

Also quashing the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the Karnataka Sakala Services Act, Sakala in 2022 upholding the tahsildar’s order, the court directed the tahsildar to issue a genealogy certificate to the petitioner as per the circular dated July 17, 2026, as contemplated under the Act. The circulars issued by the government concerning genealogy certificates are only to be read as a guiding factor and not beyond, the court noted.

The government advocate contended that according to the enquiry conducted upon the application filed by the petitioner, barring a few, nine of the members were found to be not the residents of the concerned jurisdiction/village and they were residing at different jurisdiction/villages namely Kalasipalya, RR Nagar, Doddanekundi, etc. As such, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Tahsildar, he argued. However, no specific provision of law governing the issue in question was brought to the notice of the court.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com