The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
and
The Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy
Writ Appeal No.149 of 2007
Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present appeal is arising out of Order
dated 17.11.2006, passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.22686 of 2006.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/writ
petitioner and eight other persons had filed an application under
Section 40 of the A.P. (Tenancy Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') seeking sanction of
succession of tenancy rights before respondent No.2/Deputy
Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO). It was stated that their father late Janga Reddy and three others viz., Chandra Reddy, Komraiah and Narayana Reddy were joint protected tenants of the land admeasuring Acs.5.20 guntas in Survey Nos.143 to 147 situated at Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. These predecessors obtained tenancy certificates under Sections 35 and 37 of the Act and Janga Reddy passed away on 18.04.1990. In the application, they have impleaded respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 opposed the said application on the ground that the protected tenant Janga Reddy, S/o Yella Reddy, who was called Yerra Janga Reddy was 2 not Janga Reddy, S/o Rukka Reddy, who is the father of the petitioner herein and that taking advantage of the similarity in the name, the petitioners and others were seeking grant of succession certificate. Respondent No.2/MRO overruled the objection and by proceedings dated 06.09.2003 granted succession observing that the applicants before him are entitled to 1/4th share in the subject land. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal under Section 90 of the Act before respondent No.1/Joint Collector, who allowed the same on the ground that after long time from the date of demise of the protected tenant, the revenue authorities cannot grant succession to the legal heirs and that the civil dispute between the appellant/writ petitioner and others on the one hand and the third respondent on the other hand has to be resolved in a Civil Court, and accordingly, set aside the order passed by respondent No.2/MRO. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition.
3. The learned Single Judge, after due consideration of the matter, has arrived at a conclusion that under Section 40 of the Act, a succession certificate cannot be granted and has dismissed the Writ Petition with liberty to the parties to approach the Civil Court for grant of succession certificate.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, as there is a serious dispute in respect of succession, no order could have 3 been passed by respondent No.2/MRO and the learned Single Judge was justified in permitting the parties to approach the Civil Court for grant of succession certificate especially, keeping in view the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Syed Abdul Majeed and others v. Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District1. Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in the matter.
5. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties shall certainly be free to approach the Civil Court for grant of succession certificate and after grant of succession certificate, they shall be free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
Consequently, Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, stand dismissed.
_______________________ Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ ____________________ A. Rajasheker Reddy, J 08.11.2021 lur 1 2006(5) ALD 348