THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO + WRIT PETITION No.6700 of 2017 % Dated 22.01.2024 # Smt Korem Lakshmi, W/o.late Mukanda Reddy, Aged about 75 years, R/o.Kothagattu Village, Sankarampatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District and 2 others ….Petitioners VERSUS $ The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and 5 others.

… Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue ^ Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, < GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? CITATIONS:

1. MANU/AP/0028/2003=2003(1) ALD 826=2003(1) ALT 688

2. 2011 (1)SCC 484 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.6700 of 2017

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 2^ndrespondent 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