THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.27713 of 2010 DT.09.11.2010 Between: V.Satyanarayana … Petitioner And Joint Collector, Chittoor & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Govind Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice, dated 02.11.2010, of respondent No.3, whereby while directing the petitioner and respondent No.4 to appear before him on 10.11.2010 along with necessary documents, he directed both the parties not to enter the land till the completion of the enquiry. Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.3 himself had given a family member certificate showing that the petitioner is grandson of late Smt.V.Padmavathi, original assignee of the land in question. He further submitted that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to make an enquiry as to who between the petitioner and respondent No.4 is the true legal heir of the deceased assignee. He further submitted that it is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 to prevent the petitioner from entering the land in question. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) and carefully perused the record. The whole dispute appears to have arisen on account of the death of the original assignee and the rival claims made by the petitioner and respondent No.4 over the property left behind by the original assignee. It has come on record that both the petitioner and respondent No.4 have approached respondent No.1 in this regard and the latter has referred the dispute to respondent No.3. Admittedly, the property left behind by the deceased assignee is heritable among her legal heirs. In case, the deceased has not left behind any legal heirs, the property should revert back to the Government. There being no dispute in law to this extent, no exception can be taken to the action of respondent No.3 in seeking to hold an enquiry to ascertain as to whether the deceased assignee has left behind any legal heirs. But at the same time, it is beyond the purview of respondent No.3 to hold an enquiry into as to who among the petitioner and respondent No.4 is entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased assignee as the jurisdiction to adjudicate such a question is vested only in the competent civil Court. Similarly, respondent No.3 cannot direct the party in possession not to enter the land till an enquiry is completed merely on account of the fact that the original assignee died. Respondent No.3 is therefore directed to keep the above observations in mind while holding the enquiry. On the basis of the record that may be submitted by the petitioner and respondent No.4, if he comes to the conclusion that the assignee has left behind the legal heirs, he shall then leave the dispute for the petitioner and respondent No.4 to work out their remedies before the appropriate Court of law over their claim for succession. If he finds that one of the two parties among the petitioner and respondent No.4 is in possession of the assigned land, he shall not interfere with the same unless proceedings under the provisions of extant statutory enactment are initiated and an opportunity is afforded to the person in possession. The impugned order to the extent of directing either party not to enter the land is set aside. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35366 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 09.11.2010. VGB