Rights of a protected tenant are heritable; disputes over succession must be decided by a Civil Court.

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.8453 OF 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)

Mr. P.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel, appears for the petitioners.

Mr. K.Muralidhar, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.B/858/2007, dated 20.08.2007 of the second respondent as being irregular, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and contrary to the judgment of this Hon’ble Court reported in 2006 (6) ALD 169 and consequently set aside the said memo of the second respondent by directing to decide the issue under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act.”

3. Brief facts of the case:

Petitioners’ father was a protected tenant of land admeasuring Ac.1.38 guntas in Sy.No.61, situated at Budvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal. On the death of their father, petitioners being the legal heirs of the protected tenant, made an application under Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Tenancy Act, 1950’) read with Rule 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Rules, 1950 (for short ‘the Rules, 1950’) for their rights. Respondent No.2 rejected the application vide impugned order, dated 20.08.2007 and directed the petitioners to approach competent Civil Court and obtain succession certificate. Hence, the writ petition.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners that petitioners’ father was a protected tenant of land admeasuring Ac.1.38 guntas in Sy.No.61, situated at Budvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal. It is the case of the petitioners that there is no dispute among the legal heirs of the protected tenant and that they are lineal descendants of protected tenant, as such, rights are heritable and they are entitled for the rights in land under the Tenancy Act, 1950. Respondent No.2, without considering the aspect that there is no dispute with regard to the lineal descendants/legal heirs, has directed the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court. Hence, the order is bad in law.

5. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that petitioners made an application under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 and as per Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, 1950, if there is any dispute among the applicants as legal heirs, MRO/Tahsildar cannot decide the question of lineal descendants and has to relegate such parties to Civil Court. Learned counsel supported the order of respondent No.2.

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

7. Petitioners’ father was a protected tenant of land admeasuring Ac.1.38 guntas in Sy.No.61, situated at Budvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal. Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 states that all rights of a protected tenant are heritable. Under the said section, if protected tenant dies, his legal heir or heirs will be entitled to hold the tenancy on the same terms and conditions on which such protected tenant was holding the land. During the course of submissions, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners that petitioners