THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2152 of 2024

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the rejection order dated 21.05.2024 passed in I.A.S.R.No.2090 of 2024 in LAOP No.33 of 2021 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (for short “the learned Authority”). 2. Heard Sri T. Koteshwara Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Government

Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Late B. Krishna was claimant No.1 in LAOP No.33 of 2023 and when the matter was reserved for order, on 06.09.2023, the claimant No.1 passed away. Thereafter, an award dated 19.09.2023 was passed by the learned Authority granting compensation of Rs.89,38,766/- to him. The petitioners herein as legal heirs of Late B. Krishna have filed IASR No.5450 of 2023 in LAOP No.33 of 2021 to permit them to

withdraw the compensation amount by way of cheque petition. In support of the said petition, the petitioners have filed Family Member Certificate issued by the Tahsildar vide Lr.No.C/703/2024, dated 23.04.2024. On the basis of the findings in Sreeram Rangaiah (Died) per LRs v. Gajula Krishnaiah {2006 (1) ALT 186}, wherein it is held that succession certificate would be necessary only in case of succession and not in the case of survivorship in Joint Hindu Family; and Ramachandra Reddy and others v. Special Deputy LA Unit, SCCL, Godavarikhani and another {(2019) 4 ALT 284}, wherein it is held that succession certificate is necessary in case when the legal representatives claimed through succession, it is held by the learned Authority that Late B.Krishna claimed to be owner of the acquired property having purchased it vide sale deed document No.3672 of 1980 and therefore, rejected the application for production of succession certificate vide order dated 12.01.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners filed IASR No.2090 of 2024 in LAOP No.33 of 2021 to implead the proposed LRs of C-1/B. Krishna as claimants in LAOP No.33 of 2021 to enable them to receive the award amount by filing cheque petition. Vide impugned order, the said petition was rejected on the ground that already the aforesaid order has been passed for non- production of succession certificate. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that insisting for production of succession certificate is illegal as a Family Member Certificate issued by the Tahsildar is equivalent to the succession certificate. It is further pleaded that the learned Authority has failed to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and dragged the matter for more than one year. As such, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

5. In case of death of a claimant in LAOP and the legal heirs/legal representatives claiming the compensation awarded, the issue was considered by this Court at length in Sreeram Rangaiah (died) per LRs and others v. Gajula Krishnaiah, 2006(1) ALD 757 (DB) and it is held that a succession certificate is necessary when the petitioners are claiming compensation through succession but not survivorship. In this regard, it is also relevant to peruse Section 214 (1) (b) (iii) of the Indian Succession Act and the same is extracted below:

“214. Proof of representative title a condition precedent to recovery through the Courts of debts from debtors of deceased persons.—

(1) No Court shall—

(a) …

(b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled, to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production, by the person so claiming of—

(i) …. (ii) ….

(iii) a succession certificate granted under Part X and having the debt specified therein.”

6. The above provision clearly stipulates that production of a succession c