Allowed

Gullapalli Sooribabu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Oct 2021WP/21793/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition under Article 226, the Court held that a Village Revenue Officer (VRO) is incompetent to issue an endorsement closing a Family Member Certificate application, which authority under G.O.Ms.No.145 (2015) rests solely with the Tahsildar. The impugned endorsement was set aside, and the matter remitted to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal compliant with statutory guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement issued by the Village Revenue Officer was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.145 dated 25.04.2015

Gullapalli Sooribabu, Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21793 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶5

of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“……to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent MRO, in making an endorsement, for closing off the application filed by the petitioners, for issuance of family member certificate, based on the communication dated nil, given by the 4th respondent VRO, without following the procedure as envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.145, dt.25.04.2015, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, set aside the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to issue family member certificate after duly following the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.145 dt.25.04.2015 and as per Law…..”

¶7

The case of the petitioners is that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the brother and sister. Their elder sister married Mr.Y.Sitaramaiah and they are residing at Punadipadu, Krishna District. While so, their brother-in-law died on 22.4.2007 whereas their sister died on 15.5.2021. They were issueless. Except the petitioners, there are no other legal heirs to the deceased. Subsequently, on 18.6.2021, the petitioners themselves applied for issuance of Family Member Certificate vide application No.FAMC012102736791 through Mee Seva enclosing necessary documents, as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.145, Revenue (SER.II) Department, dated 25.4.2015, explaining the relationship with the deceased. Later, petitioner No.1 received information on his mobile phone that his application was rejected. On receiving the said information, the petitioners enquired in the office of respondent No.3. However, neither respondent No.3 nor his subordinate staff responded to their request. On 29.6.2021, the petitioners got issued a letter under Right to Information Act,

¶8

¶9

2005 through their counsel asking for rejection of the application for issuance of Family Member Certificate. In addition to that, their counsel requested the concerned to supply all the annexures filed along with the application. The Public Relations Officer/Deputy Tahsildar has sent a reply on 07.07.2021 enclosing all the documents along with the endorsement, dated nil, for closing the application.

¶10

The specific contention of the petitioners is that respondent No.4/Village Revenue Officer is not competent to issue an endorsement, dated nil, and only Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer is competent in terms of G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.4.2015, and hence, the said endorsement is illegal and requested to issue a direction.

¶11

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record the instructions received from the office of the Tahsildar, Kankipadu vide Rc.No.B193/2021, dated 20.10.2021, which read as under:-

¶12

“……. I further submit that there are no immediate family members to the deceased. The petitioner/applicant has not come under the category of Class-I legal heirs of the deceased as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Further, petitioner/applicant does not mentioned at what basis they are happened to be legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner/applicant does not mentioned for what purpose they required FMC. Further, the petitioner/applicant has to file application at the permanent residence of the deceased.

¶13

As the deceased died without any children and there are no Class-I legal heirs as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 they have to get the succession certificate/legal heir through competent authority.

¶14

In this circumstances, the FMC was rejected.

¶15

This is submitted for favour of kind information.”

¶16

Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶17

mainly placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.4.2015, and

¶18

¶19

contends that respondent No.4/V.R.O is incompetent to issue such an endorsement.

¶20

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that there are no family members to the deceased and the petitioners/applicants will not fall within Class-I legal heirs of the deceased as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956; that the petitioners did not mention the basis for their claim and therefore, the respondents are not under an obligation to issue the Family Member Certificate.

¶21

Since the question is about competency of V.R.O. to issue such an endorsement, examination of competency is suffice to decide the real controversy involved in this petition. In G.O.Ms.No.145, Revenue (SER.II) Department, dated 25.4.2015, procedure is laid down and according to Clause (i), on an application made through Meeseva, the Tahsildar shall issue Family Member Certificate, provided there is no written objection from any other member of the family. This Clause (i) itself is sufficient to decide the incompetency of V.R.O. to hold that the V.R.O. is incompetent, since Tahsildar alone shall issue Family Member Certificate as per Clause (i) of the procedure. Similarly, as per Clause (vii), after the expiry of the notice period, the Tahsildar or any other officer deputed by him shall conduct enquiry and record panchanama, based on which the Tahsildar shall either issue the certificate or reject the same. Thus, the Tahsildar alone is competent either to issue or reject the Family Member Certificate but in the present case, the V.R.O. issued the endorsement, which is impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, the V.R.O. is incompetent to issue such an endorsement in terms of G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.4.2015. On this ground alone, the endorsement impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside.

¶22

¶23

However, the matter is to be remitted back to respondent No.3/Tahsildar to follow procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.4.2015, and process the application of the petitioners.

¶24

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring that the endorsement, dated nil, issued by respondent No.4 is in violation of the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.145, Revenue (SER.II) Department, dated 25.4.2015, and consequently, set aside the same while remitting the matter to respondent No.3/Tahsildar, Kankipadu for fresh disposal as per law in view of the request of the petitioners for issuance of Family Member Certificate and strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.145, Revenue (SER.II) Department, dated 25.4.2015. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶26

JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶27

Date : 21.10.2021 AMD

¶28

¶29

108

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.21793 OF 2021

¶32

Date : 21.10.2021

¶33

AMD

Gullapalli Sooribabu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gullapalli Sooribabu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Swapna Rani Panda Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Karakala Madhava Swamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guntuboyina Sirisha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Rudramurthy Vs . The State of Andhra Pradesh

R. Ramanjineyulu, Vs Smt. Y. Srilakshmi

P.P.Raju and Company, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh