ORDER : The petitioners seek writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order in Rc.A.78/2020, dated 30.01.2020 in mutating the lands of Late N. Swathi to an extent of Ac.4.10 cents in Sy.No.1385/3, Ac.0.33 cents in Sy.No.567/1, Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.921, Ac.1.53 cents in Sy.No.568/2 and Ac.0.35 cents in Sy.No.568/1 totaling Ac.6.58 cents in Kanala Village of Nadyal Mandal of Kurnool District in favour of the 3rd respondent by misinterpreting the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and colorable exercise of the power and for consequential direction to set aside the said order dated 30.01.2020 and pass such other orders. 2. Petitioners’ case succinctly is thus: (a) Petitioners and one Late N. Chinna Thirupal Reddy are the sons of Late Nandyala Veera Reddy. N. China Thirupal Reddy and his wife Subba Lakshamma died leaving behind their sole legal heir/daughter Smt. N. Swathi. Petitioners performed her marriage with B. Maheswar Reddy, son of 3rd respondent on 08.04.2010 and gave her share of property both movable and immovable properties and accordingly her name was recorded in the revenue records in respect of properties mentioned supra. (b) While so, due to misfortune the said Smt. N. Swathi, her husband Maheswar Reddy and their minor son Vikyath Reddy and daughter Hansika died in a boat accident on 20.09.2019 in Godavari river near Kachaluru, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District. Since the subject land belongs to N. Swathi and as she died in the accident, following Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the land devolve upon the petitioners since late N. Swathi died and her children also died in the same accident. However, the 3rd respondent and her husband Ramakrishna Reddy who are parental-laws of late N. Swathi made undue claim over the properties left behind by Late N. Swathi and they are pressuring the 2nd respondent to mutate their names in respect of the said lands. Knowing the same, the petitioners issued legal notice and filed a suit in O.S.No.160/2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal for declaration and injunction and the said suit is pending. Knowing the same, the petitioners issued legal notice and filed a suit in O.S.No.160/2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal for declaration and injunction and the said suit is pending. In the meanwhile the 2nd respondent passed impugned order in Rc.A.78/2020, dated 30.01.2020 by mutating the name of the 3rd respondent in respect of the subject lands without giving notice to the petitioners and hearing them which is illegal. The 2nd respondent without understanding the meaning of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act in its entirety and simply relying upon Section 15(1)(b) of the said Act observed as if 3rd respondent being heir of the husband of the deceased Swathi entitled to get Pattadar Passbook in respect of the properties of late Swathi. The said observation is quite erroneous and amounts to misappreciation of law. The 2nd respondent ought to have considered the exception provided in Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act and says that any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in subsection (1) in the order specified therein but upon the heirs of the father. Therefore, by virtue of the exception provided in sub-section (2), the writ petitioners who are the heirs of the father of late Swathi, her properties devolved on the writ petitioners, but not on 3rd respondent. Hence, the writ petition challenging the impugned order. 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition inter alia contending thus: (a) Firstly, it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the impugned order was passed under Section 5(3) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and against the said order an appeal is provided under Section 5(5) of the Act to the R.D.O. concerned and therefore, in view of the availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable. (b) Secondly, the averment in the writ petition that after the death of N.Chinna Thirupal Reddy, petitioners performed the marriage of his daughter Swathi with B.Maheswara Reddy and gave her share of movable and immovable properties is denied. (b) Secondly, the averment in the writ petition that after the death of N.Chinna Thirupal Reddy, petitioners performed the marriage of his daughter Swathi with B.Maheswara Reddy and gave her share of movable and immovable properties is denied. It is admitted that the subject properties are mutated in the name of Swathi in the concerned revenue records. It is stated that after the demise of her parents, N.Swathi was under the care and protection of her senior maternal aunt by name Laksmi Devi and her husband Ramakrishna Reddy of Bachepalle Village of Allagadda Mandal and they performed the marriage of Swathi with B.Maheswara Reddy, who is the son of 3rd respondent, on 08.04.2010. The said marriage was arranged by the brothers of 3rd respondent. The petitioners were not in good terms with their brother N.Chinna Thirupal Reddy, and so they never looked after the needs of N.Swathi or her parents and they did not even attend the marriage of N.Swathi. It is true that Swathi, her husband Maheswara Reddy and her son Vikhyath Reddy and daughter Hansika died in the boat accident on 20.09.2019 in Godavari river near Kachaluru, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District. However, it is denied that by virtue of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act the properties of late Swathi devolved upon the writ petitioners. In fact, Section 15(2)(a) is applicable to 3rd respondent rather than petitioners. (c) Thirdly, it is contended that under Section 21 of the Hindu Succession Act there is a presumption as follows : “21. Presumption in cases of simultaneous deaths:— Where two persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain whether either of them, and if so which, survived the other, then, for all purposes affecting succession to property, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the younger survived the elder.” (d) When the presumption provided in the above section is applied to the case on hand, it can be said that the younger survived the elder until the contrary is proved. In that view, the properties of N.Swathi devolves on her daughter and she died intestate (presumed to have died last) by surviving her parents and brother. In that view, applying Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, the properties devolved on late Hansika would devolve on 3rd respondent being the heir of her late father. In that view, the properties of N.Swathi devolves on her daughter and she died intestate (presumed to have died last) by surviving her parents and brother. In that view, applying Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, the properties devolved on late Hansika would devolve on 3rd respondent being the heir of her late father. Therefore, the 3rd respondent applied to 2nd respondent for mutation of the subject lands in her name and 2nd respondent after due enquiry and after obtaining legal opinion rightly mutated the properties in her name. The 3rd respondent admitted that the petitioners filed O.S.No.160/2020 on the file of the learned Principle Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal against her and her husband for declaration of the title of the writ petitioners over the suit schedule properties and for consequential permanent injunction and the said suit is pending. The 3rd respondent thus contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue did not file any counter, understandably as it is a clash between the private parties over the subject properties. 5. Heard Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents 1 & 2, and Sri S.C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for 3rd respondent. 6. Both the counsel have reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. Since most of the factual aspects are admitted by both parties, their arguments revolve around the way, Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act has to be applied for resolving the issue as to whether writ petitioners or respondent No.3 succeed the subject properties of late N.Swathi. 7. I gave my anxious consideration. It should be noted that though the 3rd respondent claimed that as against the impugned order, an appeal is provided under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and on that ground the writ petition is not maintainable, I am unable to accept this contention for the main reason that the crux of the issue mainly pivots on the application of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act which is purely a legal question and therefore, the writ petition can be entertained if the 2nd respondent committed an error of law in interpreting the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. It should be noted that the constitutional Courts generally loath to entertain writ jurisdiction when alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the concerned petitioner. It is only self-imposed restriction, but not any statutory taboo. Therefore, the contention of 3rd respondent regarding the maintainability of writ petition cannot be accepted. However, this Court declines to entertain the writ petition for another important reason. Admittedly, writ petitioners have filed O.S.No.160/2020 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, for declaration of their title and for permanent injunction over the subject properties, against 3rd respondent and her husband and the said suit is pending before the trial Court. The facts and law involved in the said suit as well as the writ petition are identical. In that view, it is not apposite on the part of this Court to express any view on the merits of the case. Therefore, I consider it apposite to set aside the impugned order passed by 2nd respondent and direct him to mention in the property disputes register and other concerned records that the subject properties are pending dispute in O.S.No.160/2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, instead of mutating those properties in the name of either of the parties for the time being. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the 2nd impugned order in Rc.A.78/2020, dated 30.01.2020 passed by respondent, and the 2nd respondent is directed to mention against the subject properties as subject matter of O.S.No.160/2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal in the concerned records till the final disposal of O.S.No.160/2020. The learned Principal Junior civil Judge, Nandyal is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of O.S.No.160/2020 within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stand closed.