K.Rukka Reddy, vs The Joint Collector, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3277 Tel

     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

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

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

2006(5) ALD 348