THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14383 of 2007 DATED:22.12.2009 Between: Smt.Shyamala Bai, ..Petitioner And Guru Shyamala and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14383 of 2007 ORDER: The first respondent filed C.A.No.89 of 2002 in the Court of Administrator General of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Building, Hyderabad, claiming certain benefits in the form of the entitlement to receive the family pension etc., payable in respect of late Y.Satyanarayana. She pleaded that Y.Satyanarayana was her husband and that the marriage took place on 07.05.1980. He was employed as a painter in the Indian Railways and died on 21.09.2001. On coming to know that the first respondent filed C.A.No.89 of 2002, the petitioner entered appearance and engaged an advocate. However, on account of the death of her advocate during the pendency of the proceedings, there was no representation for her. She contends that her marriage with Y.Satyanarayana took place on 15.06.1979. The Administrator General passed an order dated 27.10.2005 allowing the application. The same is challenged in the Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the first respondent. The application filed by the first respondent before the Administrator General was to enable her to receive the death benefits of late Y.Satyanarayana. The Administrator General is not conferred with the powers to decide the disputes of that nature. It is only a civil Court that can decide such questions in a Succession O.P. filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Administrator General is set aside. It is left open to the petitioner and the first respondent to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. The entitlement to receive the death benefits of late Y.Satyanarayana shall depend upon the outcome of the O.P. The second respondent shall not pay the pension to any one including the petitioner and the first respondent, unless the matter is decided by the civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 22nd December 2009 KH