The petitioners 1, 2 and 4 claimed to be sons and third petitioner claimed to be daughter in-law of late Syed Galib, who was allegedly a protected tenant to the extent of half share in the land admeasuring Acs.118.32 guntas in survey Nos.334 to 339, 341 and 342 situated at Nomula Village of Manchala Mandal in Ranga Reddy District (hereafter called, the subject land). The petitioners allege that they are in possession of the land after death of their predecessor. Gulam Mohammed, the father of the fourth respondent, dispossessed the petitioners from the land admeasuring Acs.9.20 guntas in survey No.339, but admitted that the petitioners are successors of protected tenant. The petitioners also referred to the suit being O.S.No.2 of 1967 filed by Gulam Mohammed - the landholder; against one Laxmana Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao seeking correction of record of rights and appeal being A.S.No.30 of 1969 in which the claim of the petitioners as successors of protected tenant was allegedly accepted. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the petitioners are entitled to be treated as legal heirs of the protected tenant, Syed Galib, and recorded as such in the revenue records.

2. The petitioners filed an application in 2002 before the second respondent under Section 40 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (the Act, for brevity) claiming succession as legal heirs of Syed Galib. After conducting enquiry and personal inspection, by proceedings dated 25-1-2005 the second respondent granted succession to the petitioners in respect of the subject lands. Aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent who had appeared before the second respondent and opposed the grant of succession to the petitioners preferred appeal under Section 90 of the Act. The first respondent allowed the appeal and set aside the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manchala Mandal (MRO), observing that the question of right of succession will not be amenable to a summary enquiry and that the same has to be adjudicated by civil court. This is assailed in the writ petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that in a number of collateral proceedings the revenue officials as well as fourth respondent admitted that Syed Galib, the predecessor in title of the petitioners, was the protected tenant to the extent of half share and, therefore, under Section 40 of the Act, the petitioners being lineal descendants of Syed Galib, are entitled to inherit the lands as successors of protected tenant. Secondly and alternatively, learned Counsel for the petitioners would urge that when the Joint Collector came to the conclusion that in a summary enquiry, succession certificate cannot be granted by revenue authorities, he could not have made any observations regarding the status of the petitioners especially when the petitioners application under Section 32 of the Act seeking declaration of possession is pending before the MRO. learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on V. Narsa Reddy v. S.Sattaiah1, Ravinder Reddy v. Ayyappa2, B.Chandra Reddy v. Smt. Pullamma3 and Mir Sardar Ali v. MRO, Keesara Mandal4.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) submits that Section 40 of the Act only declares that the protected tenancy is heritable and the same does not confer any power on the MRO to adjudicate the questions of succession. He placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court in Sabavat Tulichya v. The MRO, Amangal Mandal5.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioners made application before the second respondent under Section 40 of the Act for issuance of succession certificate in respect of half share of land in survey No.334 etc., situated at Nomula Village. The fourth respondent herein filed objections before the MRO inter alia contending that an application under Section 40 of the Act is not maintainable and that the father of the fourth respondent being the owner of the subject lands,