THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No. 2780 of 2006 Dated. 17–02-2011 Between: Chakali Basaiah and others. …Petitioners Vs. The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 2780 of 2006 Dt. 17-02-2011 ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is directed against the order dated 28-11-2005 of the 1st respondent. One Chakali Chandraiah, the grandfather of the writ petitioners, was the protected tenant of agricultural lands in an extent of Ac.07-21 guntas in survey Nos. 86 and 87 of Mohammadabad village, Gandeed Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. On his death, his son and the father of the petitioners – Chakali Sandiaah – applied for a certificate under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’). However, the certificate under Section 38-E of the Act was issued in favour of Bylu Ramulu and Bylu Pullaiah, who claimed to being the sons of late Chakali Chandriah. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners’ father – Sandaiah – preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent— The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District. By an order dated 04-12-1999 the Joint Collector set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting certificate under Section 38E of the Act in favour of Ramaiah and Pullaiah and remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer for determination de novo. After remand as above, by the order dated 25-10-2004, the 2nd respondent held that Chakali Sandaiah, the father of the petitioners, was the legitimate legal heir of the deceased protected tenant – Chakali Chandraiah. For coming to this conclusion, the 2nd respondent observed that after the demise of the first wife of Chakali Chandraiah, Chakali Yellamma (the mother of the petitioners) Chakali Chandraiah had a relationship with Smt. Madugu Ramulamma (the grandmother of the unofficial respondents); that there was no lawful marriage between Chakali Chandraiah and Ramulamma and therefore since Chakali Sandaiah was the only lawful legal heir, he and after his demise, his legal representatives, the writ petitioners are entitled to a certificate under Section 38-E of the Act. Aggrieved thereby the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein (the legal representatives of Bylu Ramaiah and Bylu Pullaiah) preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent, who by the order impugned, set aside the order of the 2nd respondent dated 29-10-2004 declaring Chakali Sandaiah to be the only lawful legal heir of Chakali Chandraiah and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to have the succession dispute resolved whereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer could be approached for issuance of a certificate under Section 38-E of the Act. Assailing the order of the 1st respondent, this writ petition filed. No provision of the Act has been brought to the notice of this Court which authorizes the authorities under the Act to determine a disputed question of succession to the estate of Chakali Chandraiah. As the determination of the dispute relating to succession is a matter falling within the purview of the adjudicatory domain of a civil Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the CPC’), in the absence of any legislative provision excluding such generic adjudicatory power of the Civil Court and in the context of the fact that there is nothing vouchsafed as to the qualifications, experience or authority of the revenue authorities, which enables determination of disputed questions of law and fact, it must be held that a disputed question of succession to an estate or assets of a deceased must and of necessity be determined by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in an appropriate proceedings. In Syed Abdul Majeed v. Joint Collector- II, Ranga Reddy District[1] a learned single Judge of this Court has taken a similar view in somewhat different factual context and held inter alia if there is a dispute between two or more persons claiming to be lineal descendants of the protected tenant, if their predecessor had already obtained a certificate under Section 38-E of the Act and became absolute owner, the M.R.O cannot decide that question. This Court respectfully agrees with the said principle. There can be no gainsaying that in the absence of a legislative authorization the essential principles of separation of powers and a generic adjudicatory power consecrated to the civil Court under the presents of the provisions of the CPC, disable the exercise of adjudicatory power by a revenue or an administrative authority. On the above view of the matter, the order of the 1st respondent dated 28-11-2005 is impeccable and warrants no interference in review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is without merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 17-02-2011 Pvks/* [1] 2006 (5) ALT 754