ORDER :

1. Since the subject property and parties in both the writ petitions are one and same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. In W.P.No.23426 of 2013, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to call for the records relating to and connected with proceedings in order dated 20.07.2013 in Revision No.F2/5558/2013 passed by respondent No.1 and quash the same as erroneous, arbitrary and illegal.

3. In W.P.No.4386 of 2014 the petitioner has questioned the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein in providing police security for the petitioner in cultivating petitioner’s land admeasuring Acs.4-35 guntas in survey No.12/20 situated at Lingarajpally Village, Atmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District, as illegal and arbitrary.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.23426 of 2013.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the mother of late Thummala Srinivas Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’ for brevity), who died intestate on 06.05.2012 leaving behind him, the petitioner and respondent No.4 as his class-I heirs. The deceased was owning and possessing agricultural land admeasuring Acs.4-35 guntas in survey No.12 situated at Lingarajupally Village of Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District, having acquired the same in the oral partition effected between himself, his brother and his father. After the death of the deceased, when the respondent No.4 tried to get her name recorded in the revenue records in respect of the subject property, the petitioner got issued a notice on 10.09.2012 to respondent No.3 also to include her name in the revenue records as the legal heir of the deceased. In spite of receipt of the said notice, respondent No.3 passed the order dated 04.10.2012 vide C/2772/2012 mutating the name of the respondent No.4 alone in the revenue records. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 5 (5) read with Rule 21 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act (in short ‘ROR Act’), vide appeal No.D/3872/2012 before respondent No.2 and the same was also dismissed by respondent No.2. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act. Vide order, dated 20.07.2013, passed in Revision No.F2/5558/2013, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

6. Questioning the inaction of the respondent authorities in providing police protection to respondent No.4 for cultivating the subject land, in pursuance to the orders dated 20.07.2013 passed by the revisional authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner in W.P.No.23426 of 2013, the respondent No.4 filed the subsequent writ petition being W.P.No.4386 of 2014.

7. The Revisional Authority-Joint Collector has filed a counter affidavit stating that in the case on hand, partition was already made between the husband of the petitioner and the deceased i.e. son of the petitioner. Though Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, prescribed equal share to the mother along with the wife, the same cannot be applied herein in toto as the property was already partitioned between the husband and sons of the petitioner in which her husband got Acs.8-31 guntas while her sons got the land of Acs.4-35 guntas each. The petitioner is having substantial right over the property held by her husband while the respondent No.4 got exclusive rights on the property held by her deceased husband. It is further stated that if the petitioner does not have any property, then she can put up a claim against the property of her late son, but therein the petitioner’s husband is having the property more than what is held by the deceased. In such a situation, the petitioner is not entitled for a share in the land held by her late son. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that