Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1110
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, JJ.
Digamabara Rao and another – Appellants
Versus
Joint Collector, R.R. District and others - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 3580 of 1999
Decided on : 06-10-2025
For the Appellant : Sri B. Mahender Reddy
For the Respondents: Sri Vishwanath Reddy
The Mandal Revenue Officer lacks authority to issue succession certificates involving disputed rights, which must be adjudicated by a civil court.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Section 40 - Jurisdiction of revenue authorities - The Mandal Revenue Officer lacks authority to issue a succession certificate regarding tenancy rights, which should be addressed by a competent civil court (Paras 17, 19).
(B) Principle of natural justice - The petitioners contended that they were not given opportunity to present evidence before the authority, violating natural justice principles (Paras 5, 6).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners claimed ownership of agricultural lands based on oral partition, while respondents asserted protected tenancy rights over the same lands based on a succession certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer (Para 2a, 2b).
Findings of Court:
Joint Collector erred in confirming succession without proper jurisdiction; issues of succession must be handled by civil courts (Paras 17, 19).
Issues: Competence of Mandal Revenue Officer to issue succession certificates and whether the succession claim by the respondents was valid under the Tenancy Act (Paras 3, 10).
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the issuance of succession certificates for disputed properties was outside the purview of revenue authorities, which cannot adjudicate succession disputes (Paras 17, 19).
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed, and orders of revenue authorities were set aside with parties directed to civil court for redressal (Para 20).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and possession of agricultural lands. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against tenancy rights of respondents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. respondent's claim based on historical possession. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's analysis of jurisdiction and succession rights. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. mandate to approach civil court for succession. (Para 17) |
| 6. conclusion allowing the civil revision petition. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J.
This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F2/569/96 confirming the order dated 20.10.1994 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in File No.D/4366/94, wherein succession certificate was granted in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.143 and 144 of Tandur Village.
I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:
a) The case of revision petitioners is that they are the owners and possessors of agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.143 and 144, admeasuring approximately Ac.1.33 guntas and Ac.1.36 guntas respectively, situated in Tandur Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. These lands originally stood in the name of their father, late Rama Rao. Through an oral partition among the brothers, Sy.No.143 was allotted to Digambara Rao and Sy.No.144 was allotted to Prakash Rao. The said oral partition was recognized and confirmed by the Mandal Revenue Officer of Tandur in the year 1991 and their names were subsequently mutated in the revenue records as owners and possessors of their respective lands. Since then, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of these properties as absolute owners.
b) Respondents Nos.3 and 4, Baboomia and M.A. Raheem, claiming to be the sons and legal heirs of late Hussanmia, filed an application under Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 presently known as Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenancy Act”) seeking issuance of succession certificate over the same lands. They claimed that their father viz., late Hussanmia was a protected tenant in respect of the said lands and as such they were entitled to succession. However, the petitioners disputed their claim by contending that late Hussanmia was never a protected tenant, but only a mortgagee in possession under a 20 year usufructuary mortgage executed by their father, which had since been redeemed, thereby reverting the possession to the petitioners. The petitioners alleged that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tandur, granted the succession certificate in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 without proper notice to the petitioners or conducting any proper enquiry.
c) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an Appeal vide Case No.F2/569/96 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, who upheld the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer vide order dated 05.07.1999 by holding that the father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 was a protected tenant. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court challenging the said order dated 05.07.1999 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.
II. POINT FOR DETERMINATION:
3. The point that arises for consideration is:
Whether there are any sufficient grounds to set aside the impugned order?
4. Heard Sri B. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Vishwanath Yadavi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioners
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that late Hussanmia was only a mortgagee in possession for a limited period of twenty (20) years and after the expiry of the mortgage period, the possession reverted to the re
