ORDER:

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the endorsement issued by the respondent No.3 for rejecting the application made by the petitioner for issuance of the Family Members Certificate.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter submits that the Tahsildar is not a competent authority to issue Legal Heir Certificate for mutation of properties, but, he is competent to give Family Member Certificate to those applicants or Legal Heirs to receive dues from the Government. But, herein the applicant is seeking Family Member Certificate for mutation of property, comes under succession and for that the petitioner need to get a succession certificate from the competent Civil Court only.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that the respondent No.3 is not a competent authority to issue Family Member Certificate as per the Memo of the Government Services-III, 31346/Ser-II-2/2010, dated 25.10.2010 and also the Memo issued by the Government in Memo No.11496/Ser-II/2/2012/2, dated 25.06.2013. The respondent No.3 rightly rejected the application made by the petitioner for granting Family Member Certificate for mutation of properties. The deceased is not a Government servant and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner made application for granting Family Member Certificate for mutation of property and the respondent No.3 issued impugned endorsement on the application made by the petitioner. It is a settled law that the Tahsildar is not a competent authority for issuing Family Member Certificate for mutation of properties and on making application for Family Member Certificate has to be issued by the legal heirs of the Government servants for receiving terminal benefits of deceased Government servant.

6. This Court in D.Leelavathi @ Lavanya v. Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, [2013 (5) ALT 489 (S.B.)] held that the Tahsildar is not the competent authority for granting legal heir certificate and the relevant portion of the said order is as follows:

“This Court in G. Vijaya Bhaskar and others v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Manopad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District Unreported decision dated 01.02.2001 in W.P.No.7430 of 2000, held that the issue relating to legal heirs of deceased persons has to be decided by the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction and it is open to the parties to pursue the remedies available in law and it is not open to Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar to issue certificates about family members. In view of the decision in G. Vijaya Bhaskar and others v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Manopad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, it has to be held that certificates dated 25.04.2002 and 29.05.2002 issued by respondent No.4 are without jurisdiction and are therefore null and void. Therefore the consequent orders dated 17.07.2002 and 20.11.2003 of respondent No.2 recognizing petitioner No.1 and Thirupallamma an successor lessees of D.Siva Shankar Reddy and D.China Subha Reddy basing on the said family member certificates issued by respondent No.4 are also not legal and valid as no independent enquiry was done by respondent No.2 before granting them.”

The finding of the above Judgment is squarely apply to the instant case and the respondent No.3 is not the competent authority to issue Legal Heir Certificate to the petitioner.

7. In the instant case, the deceased was not a Government servant. In view of the same, the Tahsildar rightly issued impugned endorsement and the petitioner can approach the competent Civil Court for succession certificate. In view of the above findings, this Writ Petition is liable to be