IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 17543 of 2014 BETWEEN C.A.Sarojanamma AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. This writ petition is filed questioning the endorsement of the Tahsildar, dated 23.05.2014. There appears to be a contest between the petitioner and respondent No.3 as both of them claim to be legally wedded wife of the deceased C.A. Suryanarayana, who was an employee of the Electricity Department, and stated to have died on 31.07.2013 in harness. Petitioner claims that her marriage with the said Suryanarayana was celebrated on 30.05.1973 and she was blessed with a daughter by name Nagamani. It is also stated that there was a maintenance case filed by her when there were misunderstandings between her and her husband and the said M.C.No.10 of 2010 was decided by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda. It is stated that in the said M.C., the deceased admitted that the petitioner is his wife and that a daughter was born to them. On the death of the said Suryanarayana, petitioner made a claim for release of terminal benefits payable to her husband, in her capacity as legal heirs and when the electricity department demanded family members’ certificate, she approached the Tahsildar-respondent No.2. The endorsement, in question, given by the Tahsildar on the said application states that respondent No.3 also made a claim claiming herself to be the 2nd wife of the deceased and since there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3, the petitioner was advised to approach the competent civil court. Said endorsement is questioned in the present writ petition.
3. Learned government pleader was required to get instructions and he submits, on the basis of written instructions, that as per the service certificate and personal details furnished to him by the Deputy Electrical Engineer (Operations), APCPDCL, Hindupur, it is revealed that in the entry as to nominee declaration, the deceased has nominated the petitioner and one C.A. Ganga Gayatri and the details of the family members of the employee signed by the deceased are also mentioned. It was further revealed that during local enquiry, it was found that the deceased was living with respondent No.3, who had a daughter by name Ganga Gayatri, and respondent No.3 also claimed family certificate. In view of the said conflicting claims, petitioner was advised to approach the competent civil court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the deposition of the deceased recorded in the aforesaid maintenance case, where the deceased is stated to have accepted the petitioner as the wife and denied that he was living with respondent No.3. However, in my view, it is not within the competence of respondent No.2-Tahsildar to adjudicate on the status of either the petitioner or respondent No.3 and hence, the endorsement impugned directing the petitioner to approach the competent civil court does not suffer from any error or arbitrariness and hence, no interference thereof is called for.
With the liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 1, 2014 LMV