IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the requirement for jurisdiction in entertaining applications and the necessity to adhere to principles of natural justice in administrative decisions.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“ …to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Certiorari, calling for all the connected records including the impugned Proceedings of the 2ndrespondent passed in Memo No.D1/4798/2016 dated 17.12.2016 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law violative of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and quash the same and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

The Brief facts of the case are as under;

2. Petitioner No.1 had submitted online application on 25.05.2016, through Meeseva, to Respondent No.4, for issuance of death certificate of late Korem Papaiah who is none other than her father-in-law and the said application was forwarded to the respondent No.3 through letter dated 3-6-2016, recommending for issuance of death certificate and basing upon the said report respondent No.3 issued Memo No.E/7226/2016 dated 13.06.2016 stating that, the fact of death of late Korem Papaiah was confirmed as in the year 1968, but the exact date of death could not be ascertained. Therefore, request for issuance of death certificate was rejected.

3. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.5 filed application on 05.11.2016 before respondent No.2 and requested him to conduct enquiry and take necessary action. After due verification of the records respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 17-12- 2016 vide Memo No.D1/4798/2016 cancelling the memo dated 13.06.2016 issued by the respondent No.3. Questioning the same petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

4. Heard Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri K.Ram Mohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.6 has not chosen to enter appearance.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that respondent No.2 is not having any authority or jurisdiction to entertain the application dated 05.11.2016 filed by the respondent No.5 and treating the same as appeal/revision invoking the provisions of Section 158 of A.P (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act,1317 Fasli (for short “the Act 1317 Fasli”), especially when the respondent No.3 passed order/memo dated 13.06.2016 under the Provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short ‘the Act’), and the provisions of “the Act 1317 Fasli” is not applicable. Hence, the impugned order dated 17.12.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside.

5.1 He further contended that respondent No.5 has not filed appeal as prescribed under law and he only submitted application and as such the same cannot be treated as an appeal. He also contended that respondent No.3 without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioner No.1, who is a effected party, passed the impugned order and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

5.2 In support of his contentions, he relied upon the Division Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in

M.B.Ratnam and Ors. Vs.Revenue Divisional Officer and Ors., MANU/AP/0028/2003 : 2003(1) ALD 826 : 2003(1) ALT 688.

6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, vehemently contended that petitioner No.1 submitted application dt: 25.05.2016 to the respondent No.3, for issuance of death certificate of late Korem Papaiah, more than 48 years after his death, without explaining any reasons for the said delay and not produced any iota of evidence that Korem Papaiah died on particular date. He further contended that petitioner No.1, with a malafide intention filed application before respondent No.3, to defeat the rights over property of the res