ORDER : 1. Since the subject property and parties in both the writ petitions are one and same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. In W.P.No.23426 of 2013, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to call for the records relating to and connected with proceedings in order dated 20.07.2013 in Revision No.F2/5558/2013 passed by respondent No.1 and quash the same as erroneous, arbitrary and illegal. 3. In W.P.No.4386 of 2014 the petitioner has questioned the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein in providing police security for the petitioner in cultivating petitioner’s land admeasuring Acs.4-35 guntas in survey No.12/20 situated at Lingarajpally Village, Atmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District, as illegal and arbitrary. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.23426 of 2013. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the mother of late Thummala Srinivas Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’ for brevity), who died intestate on 06.05.2012 leaving behind him, the petitioner and respondent No.4 as his class-I heirs. The deceased was owning and possessing agricultural land admeasuring Acs.4-35 guntas in survey No.12 situated at Lingarajupally Village of Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District, having acquired the same in the oral partition effected between himself, his brother and his father. After the death of the deceased, when the respondent No.4 tried to get her name recorded in the revenue records in respect of the subject property, the petitioner got issued a notice on 10.09.2012 to respondent No.3 also to include her name in the revenue records as the legal heir of the deceased. In spite of receipt of the said notice, respondent No.3 passed the order dated 04.10.2012 vide C/2772/2012 mutating the name of the respondent No.4 alone in the revenue records. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 5 (5) read with Rule 21 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act (in short ‘ROR Act’), vide appeal No.D/3872/2012 before respondent No.2 and the same was also dismissed by respondent No.2. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act. Vide order, dated 20.07.2013, passed in Revision No.F2/5558/2013, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act. Vide order, dated 20.07.2013, passed in Revision No.F2/5558/2013, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Questioning the inaction of the respondent authorities in providing police protection to respondent No.4 for cultivating the subject land, in pursuance to the orders dated 20.07.2013 passed by the revisional authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner in W.P.No.23426 of 2013, the respondent No.4 filed the subsequent writ petition being W.P.No.4386 of 2014. 7. The Revisional Authority-Joint Collector has filed a counter affidavit stating that in the case on hand, partition was already made between the husband of the petitioner and the deceased i.e. son of the petitioner. Though Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, prescribed equal share to the mother along with the wife, the same cannot be applied herein in toto as the property was already partitioned between the husband and sons of the petitioner in which her husband got Acs.8-31 guntas while her sons got the land of Acs.4-35 guntas each. The petitioner is having substantial right over the property held by her husband while the respondent No.4 got exclusive rights on the property held by her deceased husband. It is further stated that if the petitioner does not have any property, then she can put up a claim against the property of her late son, but therein the petitioner’s husband is having the property more than what is held by the deceased. In such a situation, the petitioner is not entitled for a share in the land held by her late son. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that respondent No.4 is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner i.e. wife of her deceased son. The son of the petitioner, who is the pattadar of the subject land, has died intestate. That after the death of the son of the petitioner, respondent No.4 without any intimation to the petitioner herein has filed an application before the Tahsildar for mutating her name in the revenue records. That in spite of the objections filed by the petitioner herein before the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar has mutated the land in the name of the respondent No.4 herein. That in spite of the objections filed by the petitioner herein before the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar has mutated the land in the name of the respondent No.4 herein. Even the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the revisional authority has also confirmed the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that once a person dies intestate, as per the Hindu Law of Succession, the mother as well as the wife are entitled to equal shares. That the revenue authorities have lost sight of the said basic fact and passed the impugned orders contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 05.05.2015, the respondent No.4 has contracted second marriage and a son was also born to her through the second marriage. Learned counsel contends that in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the respondent No.4 is not entitled to have any share in the subject property left by the deceased. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has not disputed the factum of remarriage of respondent No.4 and a son being born to her out of the wedlock of her second marriage. 10. It is an admitted fact that the son of the petitioner had died intestate, without naming the respondent No.4 alone as the legal heir. It is relevant to extract some of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 3 (f) describes the heir as follows: “heir” means any person, male or female, who is entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate under the Act; Section 8 prescribes General rules of succession in the case of male:- The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter--- (a) firstly, upon the heirs being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b) ….. (c) ….. (d) ….. (c) ….. (d) ….. THE SCHEDULE Heirs in Class I Son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; widow of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; widow of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, being the class-I legal heir, the mother is also entitled to equal share in the property of her son along with the widow of her son. The revenue authorities have not gone into the said aspect and have misled themselves by rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein. 12. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the revenue authorities rejecting the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained and the orders passed by all the authorities i.e. Joint Collector on 20.07.2013, Sub-Collector on 29.04.2013 and Mandal Revenue Officer on 04.10.2012 are hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the primary authority to consider the claim of the petitioner, afresh. It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, the authorities concerned are directed to put all the parties i.e. petitioner as well as 4th respondent on notice, afford them an opportunity of hearing, and pass necessary orders, strictly in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, W.P.No.23426 of 2013 is allowed. In view of the orders passed in W.P.No.23426 of 2013, the relief sought in W.P.No.4386 of 2014 cannot be granted and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.