On the basis of the findings in Sreeram Rangaia-h (Died) per LRs v. Gajula Krishnaiah i

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA .''ARA @No.2152 of '.',O24 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Artic:l: ').27 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality ar r validity of thc rejcction order dated 2l .O5.2024 I ,assed in l.A.S R.No.2O9O of 2024 in LAOp No.33 of 20,)t on the file ol the learned Presiding Officer, Land : c qrLisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authoritt. for t re State of Telangana at Hvderabad (for short ,,the learnerl I Lrthoritr.,,).

2. Heerrd Sri T. Koteshu,ara prasad, learnccl .olntsel for the revision petitioners and the learned - overnment Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondent;

3. The brief facts of the case are that Latc l_ I(rishna u'as claimant No.1 in LAOP No.33 of 2023 :rnc rvhen the matter r.r,as reserved for order, on 06.O9.'2023, tl e clzrimant No. I passed awar.. Thereafter, an aw.ard dated \).Og.2023 \\'as passed b1. the learned Authorirv granting compensation of Rs.89,38,766 l- to him. Thc ceritioners herei n as legal heirs of Late B. Krishna havr filecl IASR No.5-150 ot 2O23 in LAOP No.33 of 2021 to per-.it rhern ro I I l 1 I withdraw the compensation amount by way of cheque petition. In support of the said petition, the petitioners have filed Family Member Certificate issued by the Tahsildar vide Lr.No.Cl7O3 12024, dated 23.04.2O24. On the basis of the findings in Sreeram Rangaia-h (Died) per LRs v. Gajula Krishnaiah i2O06 (1) ALT 1861, wherein it is held that succession cerlificatc r,i'ould be necessary only in case of succession and not in the case of survivorship in Joint Hindu Family; and Ramacl.randra Reddy alrd others v. Special Deputv LA Unit, SCCL, Codavarikhani and another (2019) 4 ALT 2A4i, u'herein it is held that succession certiltcate is necessarv in case when the legal representatives claimed through succession, it is held by the learned Authoritv that Late B.Krishna claimed to be owner of the acquired properti- having purchased it vide sale deed document No.3672 oi 1980 and therefore, rejected the application for production of succession certificate vide order dated 12.01.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners liled IASR No.2O90 ol 2021 in LAOP No.33 of 2O2l to implead the proposed LRs of C-llB. Krishna as claimants in LAOP No.33 ol 2O21 to enable them to receive- \ -) the a'*'ard arnor.rnt by fiiing cheque petition' Vidc I rlpugned order, the said petition was rejected on the gr t r-rnd tl-rat alread-1' the ;rforesaid order has been passe( Ibr uon procluction of succession certificate' Aggrieved br lle same' the present Revision Petition is preferred'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners :rr 1 tteci that insisting for production of succession certificatt' i ' illegzrl ars a Famrly Member Certificate issued by the T: Irsildar is equivalent to the succession certificate' It s I'urthcr ple:rded that the learned Authority has lailed t() ( \crcisc its discretionary jurisdiction and dragged the mattr r for morc than one year. As such, prayed that the impugr t ci order be set aside. In case of death of a claimalt in LAOP a.l1 the legal 5. heirs/legal representatives claiming the c( I rpensatlon au,arded, the issue was considered by this Cotr t at length in Sreeram Rangaiah (died) per LRs and other i v' Gajula Krishnaiahranditisheldthatasuccession::'rtificatets necessani uhen the petitioners are claiming (-i ) npetlsatioll I l(()6( l)Al-l) i-i: ll)B) .l through succession but not survivorshrp' In this regard' it is also relevant to peruse Section 214 (11 (b) (iii) of the Indian Succession Act ald the same is extracted below "2I4. Proof ol' represenlativc title a condirion precedent to recovery through the Courts of debts from debtors of deceascd persons'- (1) No Court shall- (a) (b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitlccl, Lo cxecute against such a dcbtor a dccrec or order lor the payment of his debt. cxccpt on the production' bY the Person so claiming ol- (i) (i,) (iii) a succcssioll certilicate granted under Part X and having the debt sPecified Lherein " 6 The above provision clearly stipulates that production of a succession certificate is necessary for claiming compensation of a deceased claimant as his successor in interest. Further, G.O Ms'No' I45 Revenue (SER-II) Department., dated 25.O4 '2015 contains clarification u'ith regard to issuance of Family Member Certificate as follows: " 1. It should be clearll'- specified that Famrll' Membcr Certlficate is not a Lcgal Heir Certificatc.

2. It shall not be in licu of Lega] Heir Certificates t] : - will be rcquirecl to be produced in Civil Court matter." 7 . Learned counsel fbr the petitioners woul(l i rgue that this Court has pou'er under Article 227 of Con; itr-rtion of India to set aside thg order passed by tlr I learned Authority. Ho'"t ever, since the matter \ i,l ; alread-\' considered by this Court in case of Sreeram Rangaiah (diedf per LRs (supra) and relief was declinecl. his Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought ., r' b-y thc petitioners.

8. [n the result, the Civil Revision Petition t ; cli smissed cor-rfirming the order dated 2l .O5.2O24 I zLsst:d ir-r I.A S.R.No.209O of 2024 in LAOP No.33 of 2O2 c,n the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Land ^ :qu isition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for rt: State ol' Telangana at Hyderabad. No costs. As a sequel. the miscellaneous petitit r s, if an-v, per-rding in this Cir.il Revision Petition shall star < closed. SD/ ,.PONNA KRISHNA ASSI, |TANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// sEcrrou oFFtcER To, 1 The Land Acquisition Rehabiritation and Resetflemenl Arr rority, for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. 2 One CC to SRt THADTKONDA KOTESHWARA PRASAD Advocate tOpUCl 3 lwo CCs to GP FOR LAND ACeUtStTtON, High Court for the State of 4. |-wo CD Copies Telangana. [OUT] I GR/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 ) \ I ORDER CRP.No.2152 ot 2024 05 ?tffi t. * L)r DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION