THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.18441 of 2006 Dated: 07-09-2006 Between: Mutyala Balaiah. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION NO.18441 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is grandson of late Chakali Balaiah @ Mutyala Balaiah. Late Balaiah was allegedly protected tenant of the land comprised in survey Nos.67/1, 67/2 and 68 situated at Jalpally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. After death of Balaiah in 1960, his two sons, namely, Swamy and Raghavulu (father of the petitioner), approached the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, for grant of ownership certificate, but they did not pursue the matter. The petitioner filed an application for succession under Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural lands Act, 1950 (the Act, for brevity) and for restoration of possession under Section 32 of the Act. The second respondent, by impugned memo dated 25.08.2006, informed the petitioner that his request for issue of succession in respect of subject land cannot be issued in view of Circular dated 03.01.2006 issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking invalidation of the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that there is no prohibition under Section 40 of the Act to grant succession to the persons named therein recognizing them as legal heirs of the protected tenant. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) brought to the notice of this Court the recent judgment of this Court in Syed Abdul Majeed @ Mia Pasha and others v. MRO, Manchala Mandal and others[1] and submits that it is not competent for MRO to decide the question of succession and in the case of dispute among the legal heirs of protected tenant, the remedy is to approach the Civil Court claiming succession. In the judgment referred to hereinabove, after referring to the provisions of the Act and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural lands Rules, 1950 (the Rules, for brevity), this Court held as under. Reading Section 40 of the Act and the Tenancy Rules together, it must be held that though under Section 40 of the Act, Tahsildar has no power to decide questions of succession to the protected tenancy, in the event of acquisition of rights, Tahsildar can conduct verification under Rule 14 of the Rules and order amendments in the register of mutations. Such a procedure is also contemplated under Section 4 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and Rule 18 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Rules, 1989. The enquiry contemplated for amending mutation in the event of acquisition of rights either by survivorship or succession is altogether different from adjudicating the question of succession. Even while dealing with the application for recording for amendment of entries in the mutation register, if there is a dispute by the applicant, the MRO should relegate such party to the civil court. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to decide the question which is no more res judicata. A copy of the judgment dated 07.07.2006 in W.P.No.13679 of 2006 shall form part of this order. If there is no dispute among the legal heirs of late Balaiah, the alleged protected tenant, they may make an application under Rule 14 of the Rules, which shall be considered in accordance with law by the competent authority. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 07th September, 2006 ghn [1] W.P.No.13679 of 2006 Dated 07-07-2006