'1 . Smt. Rashida Begum v. 1. The State of Telangana

3. The Tahsiidar, Utnoor Mandal, Utnoor, Adilabad District., 4. Smt. Nikhat Sulthana, W/o. Abdul Saleem, Age 43 years, Occ House wife, No.#2-3-27 l'1, Khanapoor Locality, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

5. Nuzhath Begum, W/o. Mohammed Ziyauddin, Age 43 years, Occ House wife, Rlo.#3-1 -254112, Hamaliwada, Ghadiyar Ghar, Adilabad, Adilabad District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings No.J/705/2017, dt.28-1)-2017 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently restore the family member certificate dt.02-09- 2016 issued by 4th respondent in favor of petitioners and other family members of Sri. Late Mohd. Akram Ali Khan l.A. NO: 1 OF 21117(WPMP . NO: 50092 OF 2017) Petition ernder Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further p'oceedings in pursuance of the proceedings No.J/70 st2o17 , dt. 28-10-2017 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 1 oF 2018 Between:

1. Smt. Nikhat Sulthana, Wo. Abdul Saleem, Age 43 years, Occ House wife, N o.#2-3-,27 I 1, Khanapoor Locality, Ad itabad, Adila6ad District.

2. Nuzh.ath llgqy1,W/o. Mohammed Ziyauddin, Age 43 years, Occ House wife, Rl o.#3-1 -i2541 1 2, Hamatiwada, Ghadiyar Gnar, AOitabdO, Ad'ilabad Diskict. ...PET!T|ONERS/R-4 & 5 in W.p. No.40364 of 2017 AND

1. Smt. Rashida -Qqgrf, W/o. Late Mohd. Akram, Age 67 years, Occ House wife, Fl/o;#3-168/2, Pochamma Wada, Utnoor Villa6e and Mantai, Adi6b;a District, Tr:langana State. Z. [o.la. .MujiblJr Bglfgl Khan, Sio. Late Mohd. Akram, Age 37 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o.#3-168/3, Pochamma Wada, Utnoor Viltige and Mdndal, Adilabad District, Telangana State. ...WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS

3. The State of Telangana, Eep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Departmerrt, Secretariat BuiidinOs, Secretiriat, Hyderadad.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Utnoor Revenue Division, Utnoor, Adilabad District.

5. The Tahsiidar, Utnoor Mandal, Utnoor, Adilabad District., ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order passed in WpMp No. 50092 ot 2017 in Wp No. 40364 of 2017 dated 29.11.2017 . IA NO: 2 OF 201 B Between:

1. The State of Telangana, Eep. by its principal Secretary, Revenue Departmer t, Secretariat Buildings, Secretiriat, Hyderabad.

2. The Revenue Divisionar officer, Utnoor Revenue Division, Utnoor, Adirabad District.

3. The Tahsii<iar, Utnoor Mandal, Utnoor, Adilabad District., ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS D 1. Smt. Rashida Begum, W/o. Late Mohd. Akram, Age 67 Years, Occ House wife, R/o.#3-'168/2, Pochamma Wada, Utnoor Village and Mandal, Adilabad District, Telangana State.

2. Mohd. Mujib Ur Rahman Khan, S/o. Late Mohd. Akram, Age 37 Years, Occ Cultivation, R/o.#3-168/3, Pochamma Wada, Utnoor Village and Mandal, Adilabad District, Telangana State.

3. Smt. Nikhat Sulthana, W/o. Abdul Saleem, Age 43 years, Occ House wife, No.#2-3-2711 , Khanapoor Locality, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

4. Nuzhath Begum, Wo. Mohammed Ziyauddin, Age 43 years, Occ House wife, N o.#3-1 -2541 12, Hamaliwada, Ghadiyar Ghar, Adilabad, Adilabad District. (Respondent No.3 & 4 are not necessary parties to this petition) ...RESPONDENT'PETITIONERS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt: 29.11.2017 passed in WP.MP.No. 50092 of 2017 in WP.No.40364 ot 2017 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitaoners: SRI KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURI Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3: Mrs. S. SRAVANTHI, ASST. GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRI N. VASUDEVA REDDY (sc FoR RTC) The Court made the following: ORDER T][IE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH ORDER: oN No.4O364 oF 2oL7

1. Thirs writ petition is l'iled challenging the proceedings No.J/7O5/201.7, dated 28.lO.2OlT, rnhereby the rcspondr:nt No.2,/ Rcvenue t)ivisional Offlcer, Utnoor Division, Adilabad District cancelled the Family Member Certificar-e No.FAMC No.02 1600234468 darecl Oit. og.2o16 issued by tlre rcspondent No.3/'lahsilclar, Utnoor, wtrich vu'as issued in favour of the pctitioners, as arbitrarv and iliegal and sought to set aside the same.

2. Fleard sri Krishna Kishore Kowuri, lear-ned cor-rnsel {br the petiti<lners, Mrs. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Govetnment Pleader tbr Revcnue appcaring for the official rcspondents and Sri N.vasudcv Rcddy, lcarned Counsel for the unofl'.cial respondcnts No.4 and 5.

3. 'lhe learned counsel [c.rr th.: pctitioncrs woulti sr_rbmit that the husband o[ the pctitioner No.l namely Mohd. 2 SKJ -It Akram AIi Khan died on 13.07 .20L6. The petitioner No.1 and her sons have apptied for issuance of Family Members certificate and after enquiry the respond.ent No.3 issued Family Members certificatc on o2.og .2016 in favour of fivc sons. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 and hcr filccl er comPlaint before the respondent Nos.4 and 5, have respondcnt Nos.2 and 3 stating that ttrey are also family along with petitioners, being the daughters of Late Mohd.AkramAliKhan.Uponr,vhichtherespondentNo.2 issr.red notices to the pctiti<-rncrs directing them to be attend before him on 25.07 .2017 , on which date the petitioner No.lcouldnotattendbeforethcrespond'entNo.2inviewof her illness. Thereafter, without afforcling any opportunity tothepetitioners.therespondentNo.2issuedimpugned proceedings No .J / 7 05 l 20 |7 dated 28 , to .2o 17 cancelling theFamilyMembersCertificatcissucclbytherespondent No.3.Beingaggrievedbythesamethepresentwritpetition is filed. 3 SK,J

4. The Iearned Counsel for the petitioners would submitttrattherespondentNo.2,withoutanyjurisdiction, travelledbeyondthescopeofsubjectofmatterstatingthat the petiticners are not willing to give away the lair shares of the propt:rty to the respondent No'4 and 5 in rcspect of the property owned b1' late Mohd'Akram Ali Khan and the approactr of the respond'ent No'2 may cause serious prejudic,: to the rights o[ the respectivc parties and requested to set aside the impugned orders passed by the rcspond:ntNo.2andrestorethefamilymemberscertificate issued b'Y Lhe resPondent No'3'

5.ThelearnedCounselfortheunofficialrespondents Nos.4 and 5, basing on the counter would submit that the father cf the respondent No'4 and 5 Mohd'Akram Ali khan died on l3-O7 '2016 leaving behind him the wife' five sons and flirre claughters' After death of thcir father' the petitiorrers with a mala -ftd" intention' without' revealing the namesoffivedaughters,obtainedFamilyMembers i --I 4 SKJ Certificate dated 02.09.2016, in favour of the petitioner No.l and her five sons. On knowing the said fact, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 gave a complaint before the Respondent No.2, who in turn after cclnducting due enquiry and after giving opportunity of being heard, cancelled the Family Members Certificate issued in favour of the petitioners and thcrc arc n0 mcrits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the u'rit petition.

6. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, admittedly the t'amily Membcrs ccrtificatc 'uvas obtained by the petitioners after death of Mohd.Akram Ali Khan, whcr died on 13.07 .2016. On knowing the said fact, the respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are thc daughters of'thc said Mohd.Akram Ali Khan, complained to the rcspondent No.2 stating that the petitioners have obtained family Members certificate without adding their names. Thc respondent No.2 after conducting cnquiry passed impugned order cancelling the Family Members Certificate granted by the 5 SK-' responde nt No.3 in favour of the petitioners on the ground that without add ing the names of five daughters of Mohd.Akram Ali Khan and directed the respondent No.3 to issuc frcs;h famil.y Membcrs ccrtificate by adding the names of the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents and other thr,:e daughters

7. The' petitioners are not disputing that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not their family Members. But the Tahsildar, issued Family Members certificate in favour of the petitioners onl5r. Moreover, it is settled law that the Responde nt Ncl.3/Tahsildar is not the competent authority for issuing Family Members Certificate for mutation of propertres; 8 This Courl. in D.Leelauqthi @ Laaanga I/s. Director of Mines and Geologg, Hgderabad I held that the TahsiJdar, is not competent authority lor granting legal ' ,91, (s) ALr lae (sB) -It heir certificate and the relevant portion of the said order is as follows: 6 SK,J "This Court in G.Vijaya Bhaskar and others Vs. Mandal Reuenue Officer, Manopad Mandal, Mahaboobnaqar District, in unreported dectsion datecl 01.02.201 1 in WP No.7430 of 2000, held that the issue relating to legal heirs of the deceased persons has to be decided by the competent Court of Ciuil jurisdiction and it is open to the parties to pursue the remedies a.uailable in laut and it is not open to Mandal Reuenue Officer/ T'ahsildar to lssue certificates about family Members. ln uieut of the decision in G.Vijaga Bhaskar and others Vs.Mandal Reuenue OfJicer, it has to be held that the certificates dated. 25.04.2022 and 2g.05.2022 issurecl by the respondent No.4 are uithout jurisdiction and are therefore null and uctid. Therefore the consequent orders dated 1 7.07.2002 and 20. I . 12003 of respondent No.2 recognizing petitioner No.1 and Thrupallamma an successor lessees of D.Siua Sankar Reddy and D.China Subha Reddy basing on the said family Members certificates lssued ba the respondent No.4 are also not legal and ualid cts no independent 7 SK,J enquiry u)as done by the respondnet No.2 before grantinq them". (Emphasis added) Thr: finding of the above Judgment squarely apply to the fac:ts of the instemt case and the respondent No.3/Te,hsildar is not the competent authority to lSSLtC Famity Members certificate to the petitioners or the unofficiril respondents 9 ln the insl-ant casc also, the deceased-Mohd.Akram Ali Khan \^ras not a (iovernment servant. In spite of ttre same, the respondent No.3/Tahsildar, without any power or authoritv, issur:d Iramily Members Certificate in favour of the l)etitioners. Being aggrieved by the sarne, the unofficieLl responclents have filed complaint before the respondr:nt No.2/ Revenue Divisional Officer and after hearing both sidcs the rcspondent No.2 set aside the Family i\{embers certificate issued by the respondent No.3 and dir:cted the respondent No.3 to issue fresh Family 8 SK,J Members Certificate by including the daughters of the deceased-Akram Ali Kkran also. Once there is no provision for issuance Family Members Certificate by the respondent No.3 to the non-Government Se rvants the question of directing the respondent No.3 to issue frcsh Family Members Certificate inctuding the daughters of the deceased does not arise. In view of the salne, order passed by the respondcnt No.2 in J l706l2017 datcd 28.lo.2ol7 and the Family Members certificate issued by the respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioners are liable to be set aside. However, thc petitioners or the unofficial respondents can approach the competent Civil Court for succession certificate for their rights.

10. In view of the above finding, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned Order passed by the respondent No.2/Revenue Divisional Officer in Proc. No . J I 7 OS I 20 17 dated 28 . lO .2O 17 as well as the Family Members Certificate No. FAMC O2L6OO23446B 9 SKJ dated O2.O9.2016 issued by the respondent No.3 in favour of the F,etitioncrs, as not legal ancl valid. The petitioners or the unofficial respondents arc at liberty to approach the competr:nt Civil Court for obtaining succession certificate for their rights. MiscellaneoLrs applications, if any, pending in this writ Petition shall also stand closed" No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.JAYAS N OFFICER Telangana, Utnoor, Adilabad ofT To, 1

2. 3 4. 5. 6 7 BSR HIGH COU]RT DATED:08/0912025 ORDER WP.No.40364 of 2017 L) 23JAl'l2m C)'J! t {.)t '._- --:'t',i! DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS -{@ +1