THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No. 10072 OF 2007

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“….to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the notice No.D/378/2007 dated 21.3.2007 and 25.4.2007 issued by the 2^nd respondent for conducting enquiry to decide the succession of ownership rights of the holder of the certificate Under Section 38-E of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 by reviewing the memo dated 2.5.2005 as illegal, arbitrary without Jurisdiction and contrary to Law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in 2006(5) ALT 754 and consequently to set aside the same by declaring that the 2^nd respondent has no power to decide the said and issue and pass such other order or orders.”

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioners is that after the demise of petitioners’ father on 28.01.1984 the petitioner being son and grandson have inherited the subject property and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same; that the petitioners’ father, late Sri Gunti Balaiah, was a protected tenant of agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.4.29 gts in Sy.No.158 and Ac.4.03 gts in Sy.No.159 of Kothwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal.

4. Further a certificate of ownership was issued under Section 38-E of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms), Hyderabad West in his favour vide proceedings dated 15.05.1975. That after the demise of the petitioners’ father on 28.01.1984, the petitioners being his sons and grandson, have inherited the said property and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

5. The M.R.O. vide proceedings dated 16.11.2001 has certified that the petitioners had acquired rights over the said land through succession and ordered to mutate their names in the pahani for the year 2002-2003; that while the matter stood thus, the respondent Nos.3 to 12 have made a representation to respondent No.1 claiming that they are the legal representatives of late Sri Gunti Balaiah, in whose favour the certificate under Section 38-E of the Act was issued and requested to issue succession certificate in their favour, in respect of the above said land.

6. It is contended that the respondent No.2 by letter dated 02.05.2005 vide proceedings No.5/72/2001 (Ex.P-3) informed that petitioners herein and the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 that the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District has issued instructions not to pass any order granting succession certificates under Section 40 of the Act to the protected tenants unless there is any order from the Civil Court and also informed that he does not have power to decide the actual legal representatives of the deceased since it is a matter of civil dispute.

7. However, subsequently the respondent No.2 vide impugned notices being D/378/2007 dated 21.03.2007 and 28.04.2007 directed the petitioners and respondents to appear for fresh enquiry on 30.03.2007 and 05.05.2007 respectively together with all documents in support of their claim, that the action of respondent No.2 in reopening a matter previously closed and attempting to adjudicate a succession dispute with a mala fide intention, without any power or authority is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

9. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, respondent No.2 by issuing the impugned notices dated 21.03.2007 and 28.04.2007 cannot direct the petitioners and respondents to appear for enquiry, to adjudicate a succession dispute, when already vide proceedings dated 02.05.2005, it was informed that instructions were issued by the Joint Collector not to pass any order granting succession certificates to the protected tenants unless there is any order from the Civil Court.

10. It is a settled law that the revenue authorities are not vested with the jurisdiction,