DANDU LAKSHMI NARAYANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The son of the petitioner was assigned an extent of Acs.2.00 cents of land in survey No.12 of Patelguda Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, vide proceedings No.B/3767/1995 dated 22.11.1995 of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Patancheru. The petitioner was at that time working as a Helper in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL). On 11.11.2009, the assignee died leaving behind his wife. Sometime after his death, his wife got remarried and left the village. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Patancheru - respondent No.4 for issuance of succession certificate. The succession certificate was accordingly granted by respondent No.4 to the petitioner. The successor to the Mandal Revenue Office, Patancheru has later submitted a report to respondent No.3 for cancellation of the succession certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Thereupon, respondent No.3 has initiated proceedings under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued by respondent No.3 to the petitioner and an enquiry was held during which the petitioner has made a statement of the facts referred to above. By the impugned order dated 17.06.2013, respondent No.3 has cancelled the assignment made to the petitioner's son as well as the succession certificate issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer in favour of the petitioner. This action of respondent No.3 is based on three reasons, namely, (i) that the father cannot succeed to his son's property, (ii) that the succession certificate was given three years after the death of the assignee, and (iii) that the assignee was not a landless poor person.

(2.) As far as the first reason is concerned, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') lays down the rules of succession in the case of males. Under this provision, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of Chapter II; firstly, upon the heirs being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule etc. The Schedule included son, daughter, widow, mother, son of a predeceased son etc., in class I and father and other relations mentioned therein in class II. The settled legal position is that if the deceased left class I heirs behind him, they will succeed to his property and if no such heir was left, the heirs in class II will succeed to the property in the order of priority. It is not in dispute that the widow of the deceased got remarried and left the village. It is nobody's case that the widow has made any claim to the property left by the deceased. Therefore, the petitioner, being the father and enumerated at the top of the list in class II heirs mentioned in the Schedule, is entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. Hence, the reasoning of respondent No.3 that the petitioner being the father cannot succeed to his son's estate is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the same cannot be sustained.

(3.) The second ground that the succession certificate was given three years after the death of the assignee is equally unsustainable. There is no statutory provision which prescribed time limit for claiming succession in respect of the assigned land held by the deceased. As regards the reasoning of respondent No.3 that the deceased was not a landless poor person at the time of assignment, the said finding was based on mere fact that the assignee was not married at the time of assignment and that his father was an employee in BHEL. Respondent No.3 has himself given a finding that the petitioner was a Helper in BHEL. Para 3 (2) (ii) of the Board Standing Order - 15 (BSO 15) defines 'landless poor person' as one who owns not more than 2 1/2 acres of wet or 5 acres of dry land and is also poor. It is not the case of the respondents that the assignee had any land at the time of assignment. Respondent No.3 has not referred to the salary, the petitioner was drawing at the time of assignment. Being the Helper, presumably, the petitioner must have been a low paid employee. In the absence of the evidence showing that the salary of the petitioner was so high as to take him out of the category of 'poor' under para 3(2)(ii) of BSO 15, the assignment granted in favour of his son cannot be termed as illegal. At any rate, the assignment granted to the petitioner's son was not cancelled at any point of time and therefore, succession cannot be denied to the petitioner.