IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20171 of 2010 Between: Sri Shaik Galib Saheb ..... Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Revenue Divisional Officer & Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Guntur, Guntur District & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri B. Sudhakhar Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri G. Vidyasagar The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20171 of 2010 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Pedakakani Mandal, for issuance of a family member certificate. Initially, the Tahsildar has issued one such certificate on 10.12.2009 showing the petitioner, his mother and sister as members of the deceased late Shaik Mastan Saheb, son of Galib Saheb. However, he issued another certificate on the same day saying that “Smt. Shaik Mastan Saheb, wife of late Galib Saheb expired on 30.06.1995 while working as Muthavalli in Hajarath Syed Baji Baba Darga…” Respondent No.2, who is claiming to be the devotee of the abovementioned Darga, approached the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Guntur, who has also counter signed the abovementioned certificate, with the complaint that the Tahsildar has no power or authority to confirm on the status of a person while purporting to certify the family members of a deceased person. This plea was accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the said certificate was set aside. Questioning the said cancellation order, the present writ petition is filed by Shaik Galib Saheb at whose instance the said certificate was issued. At the hearing, Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not given a notice to his client before cancelling the certificate. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, contended that neither the Tahsildar nor any other revenue official has power to issue a certificate confirming the status of a person. He stated that while his client has no objection whatsoever for the petitioner obtaining a family certificate showing himself and other members of the family of late Shaik Mastan Saheb as the legal representatives of the deceased person, the impugned certificate by which the Tahsildar has purported to confirm the status of the deceased as Muthavalli of the Darga in question cannot be sustained. Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 is able to point out any provision of law or the executive instructions under which a revenue official is empowered to issue a certificate pertaining to the status of the deceased. Therefore, in my opinion, the Revenue Divisional Officer is justified in cancelling certificate dated 10.12.2009 to which he has counter signed. Even though the petitioner was not given a notice, as he failed to justify the certificate issued by the Tahsildar on merits even before this Court, lack of notice by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in my opinion, has not vitiated the impugned order inasmuch as no purpose would have been served even if a notice was issued and consequently no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. It is noteworthy that even the certificate, which was set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer, contains a patent mistake, inasmuch as the deceased Shaik Mastan Saheb is described as Smt. Shaik Mastan Saheb, wife of late Galib Saheb, such a certificate could never have been made use of by the petitioner in connection with any of his claims before any authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cancellation of the certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer may be confined to one of the two certificates issued on 10.12.2009, i.e., certificate bearing L.Dis.No.622/2009-B issued on the same day without the counter signature of the Revenue Divisional Officer, which does not contain the status of the deceased as Muthavalli. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated that he has no objection for this request. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur to the extent of cancelling the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Pedakakani, which contains the status of the deceased as Muthavalli while declaring another certificate bearing L.Dis.No.62/2009-B, dated 10.12.2009 issued by him certifying the details of the family members of the deceased Shaik Mastan Saheb without describing him as Muthavalli as valid. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.25597 of 2010 and WVMP.No.3892 of 2010 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.09.2010 ES