JUDGMENT : Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24854 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’), whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein was allowed by setting aside the order dated 06.01.2023 in C.A.No.46 of 2022 issued by respondent No.5-the Administrator General-cum-State Succession Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Administrator General’) including the consequential registration of Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.1562 of 2023 dated 12.09.2023. I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. The appellant No.1 in this Writ Appeal is the son of the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner). The material facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are, that respondent No.1/writ petitioner is the son of one late Venkataiah, who in all owned Ac.5.18 guntas in Sy.No.687 of Peddapally Village and Mandal and in the family partition, the respondent No.1 was allotted subject land admeasuring Ac.1.32 guntas in Sy.No.687/4. It is stated by the respondent No.1 that his father expired on 15.12.1996 and whereas his mother, Lakshmi predeceased the father of respondent No.1. Pursuant to the said allotment of the subject land in favour of the respondent No.1, his name was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks bearing No.1584 was also issued in his favour by the revenue authorities. However, after introduction of the Dharani Portal by the Government of Telangana, as against the subject land admeasuring Ac.1.32 guntas in Sy.No.687/4/1, the name of pattadar was wrongly recorded as ‘Sri Sri/Sri Sri’. On noticing the said mistake that had crept into Dharani Portal, the respondent No.1 made an application for rectification of the said mistake on 08.1.2022. 3. It is further stated by respondent No.1 that when he went to the office of Tahsildar in the first week of August, 2023 and enquired about the status of his application made for correction of the entries in the Dharani Portal, the Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4/Tahsildar had informed that as per the orders in C.A.No.46/2022 dated 06.01.2023 passed by the Administrator General, the name of appellant No.1 was mutated in the revenue records including the Dharani Portal in terms of the said orders passed by the Administrator General. Then it is stated that upon verification, respondent No.1 came to know that he was never served with any notice in the said proceedings initiated before the Administrator General, which according to respondent No.1 is not only illegal but also without any jurisdiction apart from void in law. 4. It is further stated by respondent No.1 that though the value of the subject property is Rs.2,83,14,000/-, the appellant No.1 approached the Administrator General and filed an application vide Civil Application No.46 of 2022 under Section 29 of the Administrators General Act, 1963 (for short “the Act, 1963) as amended by Act No.33 of 2012, seeking Letters of Administration/Succession Certificate by deliberately undervaluing the subject property as Rs.9,81,000/-. Thereafter, the appellant No.1 obtained the said orders dated 06.01.2023 from the Administrator General by suppressing various material facts. Acting upon the said orders passed by the Administrator General, respondent Nos.3 and 4 effected mutation in favour of appellant No.1 in the revenue records as well as Dharani Portal in terms of the said orders dated 06.01.2023. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent No.1 was constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in W.P.No.2484 of 2023 challenging the said order dated 06.01.2023 in C.A.No.46 of 2022 on the following grounds: i) That the learned Administrator has no jurisdiction to entertain any such application filed by the appellant No.1 seeking letter of administration/succession certificate in favour of appellant No.1 particularly in view of the fact that the respondent No.1, who having been allotted the subject property in the family partition, became absolute owner thereof. Consequently, the claim of succession set up by the appellant No.1 long after the death of father of respondent No.1, is not only illegal but also against the settled principles of succession. The appellant No.1 cannot claim any such right of succession so long as respondent No.1, who is the father of appellant No.1, is alive. ii) That the Administrator General has no jurisdiction or power to grant letter of administration/succession certificate in respect of immovable properties having the value over and above Rs.10,00,000/-. In the present case, the value of the subject property as reflected in certificate of value issued by the Sub-Registrar, is Rs.2,83,14,000/-. iii) That the Administrator General is not competent to adjudicate upon disputed questions of title or possession. In the present case, the value of the subject property as reflected in certificate of value issued by the Sub-Registrar, is Rs.2,83,14,000/-. iii) That the Administrator General is not competent to adjudicate upon disputed questions of title or possession. Therefore, the very order passed in C.A.No.46 of 2022, dated 06.01.2023 is without authority and liable to be set aside. II. INTERIM ORDERS AND SUBSEQUENT EVENTS: 6. A learned Single Judge while entertaining the said writ petition, by order dated 08.09.2023, granted interim suspension of the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the Administrator General in C.A.No.46 of 2022, whereby Letter of Administration/Succession Certificate had been issued in favour of the appellant No.1. The learned Single Judge also directed the respondent No.4/Tahsildar (Joint Sub-Registrar, Peddapally) not to entertain any transactions in respect of subject land until further orders. However, notwithstanding the said interim orders, appellant No.1/respondent No.4 proceeded to effect mutation of the subject property in Dharani Portal and subsequently executed the gift settlement deed bearing document No.1562 of 2023 dated 12.09.2023 in favour of his son, the appellant No.2. III. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE: 7 . The learned Single Judge, after hearing the respective parties, allowed the writ petition vide order dated 12.02.2025 in W.P.No.24854 of 2023 thereby setting aside the order dated 06.01.2023 passed in C.A.No.46 of 2022 issued by respondent No.5/ Administrator General. The learned Single Judge further declared that the consequential registration of gift settlement deed bearing document No.1562 of 2023 dated 12.09.2023, was unlawful and in violation of the subsisting interim orders dated 08.09.2023. The learned Single Judge, however, observed that the appellant No.1/respondent No.4 would be at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court, by way of properly instituted suit for partition, if he is otherwise entitled to claim any right as a co-sharer in the said property. IV. PRESENT WRIT APPEAL: 8. Aggrieved by the said order dated 12.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.24854 of 2023, the appellants have preferred the present writ appeal. V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: A) Submissions on behalf of the Appellants: 9. Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the allegations of misrepresentation as raised by the respondent No.1 could not have been adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that such disputes necessarily require adjudication before the competent Civil Court in properly instituted proceedings. 10. Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the allegations of misrepresentation as raised by the respondent No.1 could not have been adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that such disputes necessarily require adjudication before the competent Civil Court in properly instituted proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the impugned order is erroneous as the learned Administrator General had acted strictly within his jurisdiction under Section 29 of the ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL ACT , 1963, while issuing the Succession Certificate based on the valuation at the date of application. It was argued that the learned Single Judge erred in taking into account subsequent valuation of the subject property as on 12.09.2023 at Rs.20,24,500/-, whereas the succession application was filed and decided on the basis of valuation as on 06.01.2023, which was below the statutory threshold of Rs.10,00,000/- prescribed under the Act. He further contended that execution of the Gift deed could not be held unlawful as it was executed prior to the appellants being served with the interim orders. Hence, the same could not be construed as a wilful violation of the court orders. 11. It was lastly submitted that the Writ Petition itself was not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed at the threshold. Alternatively, the parties should have been relegated to the civil court particularly when the respondent No.1/writ petitioner had failed to exhaust efficacious alternative remedies available in law, which he failed to exhaust before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants, prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. B) Submissions on behalf of the respondent No.1: 13. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Sri J. Prabhakar appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner had contended that the grant of Letters of Administration/Succession Certificate was wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It was urged that the order passed by the Administrator General was violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Provisions of Act, 1963 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and also infringing the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 14. It was urged that the order passed by the Administrator General was violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Provisions of Act, 1963 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and also infringing the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 14. It was further contended that the subject property having been allotted to respondent No.1 is ancestral in nature, and it was his specific case that appellant No.1/respondent No.4, being merely a grandson, was not entitled to succeed unless a formal partition was effected in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The writ petitioner also further alleged that the appellant No.1 in collusion with respondent No.2, had indulged in acts of fraud, manipulation of records and illegal mutation with the malafide intention to dispossess him from the subject property. 15. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 has contended that the subject property was valued at more than Rs.20,00,000/-, which exceeded the jurisdictional ceiling prescribed under the provisions of the Administrators General Act, 1963. It was further contended that when serious and unresolved disputes concerning title, succession and partition exist in respect of subject lands, the matter ought to have been relegated to a competent civil court for adjudication. Further, the conduct of the appellant No.1 in proceeding with transfer and mutation in respect of subject lands, during pendency of Writ Petition, and more particularly during the subsistence of interim orders of restraint passed by the learned Single Judge, renders him liable for action under the Contempt of Courts Act. 16. Finally, it was contended that the learned Single Judge had rightly set aside the order dated 06.01.2023 passed in C.A.No.46 of 2022 issued by respondent No.5-the Administrator General-cum-State Succession Court, as well as the consequential registration of Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.1562 of 2023 dated 12.09.2023. According to the respondent No.1 there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as such, interference of this appellate court is unwarranted. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel prayed to dismiss the Appeal. VI. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on record, the following questions fall for our consideration: i) What is the scope of Section 29 of the Administrators General Act, 1963 in granting Letter of Administration/Succession Certificate? Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel prayed to dismiss the Appeal. VI. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on record, the following questions fall for our consideration: i) What is the scope of Section 29 of the Administrators General Act, 1963 in granting Letter of Administration/Succession Certificate? ii) Whether the Administrator General is empowered to adjudicate and decide questions relating to title and possession in respect of immovable property? iii) Whether the order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the Succession Certificate and the consequential gift Settlement Deed suffers from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court in Appeal?" VII. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT ( on all Issues ): 18. At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider know the scope and ambit of Section 29 of Administrators General Act, 1963, which is extracted hereunder: “29. In what cases Administrator-General may grant certificate.— (1) Whenever any person has died leaving assets within any State and the Administrator-General of such State is satisfied that such assets, excluding any sum of money deposited in a Government Savings Bank or in any provident fund to which the provisions of the ProvidentFunds Act, 1925 (19 of 1925), apply, did not at the date of death exceed in the whole 1 [ten lakhs] rupees in value, he may grant to any person, claiming otherwise than as a creditor to be interested in such assets or in the due administration thereof, a certificate under his hand entitling the claimant to receive the assets therein mentioned left by the deceased within the State, to a value not exceeding in the whole 1 [ten lakhs]rupees. (2) No certificate under this section shall be granted before the lapse of one month from the death unless before the lapse of the said one month the Administrator-General is requested so to do by writing 1. Subs. by Act 33 of 2012, s. 2, for “two lakhs” (w.e.f. 1-7-2012). 10 under the hand of the executor or the widow or other person entitled to administer the estate of the deceased and he thinks fit to grant it. Subs. by Act 33 of 2012, s. 2, for “two lakhs” (w.e.f. 1-7-2012). 10 under the hand of the executor or the widow or other person entitled to administer the estate of the deceased and he thinks fit to grant it. (3) No certificate shall be granted under this section,— (i) where probate of the deceased’s will or letters of administration of his estate has or have been granted; or (ii) in respect of any sum of money deposited in a Government Savings Bank or in any provident fund to which the provisions of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 (19 of 1925), apply”. 19. It is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and legal provisions, observed that the subject property was valued by the appellants themselves above Rs.20,00,000/- while executing the gift deed dated 12.09.2023. This valuation clearly exceeded the jurisdictional ceiling under Section 29 of the Administrators General Act, 1963, which restricts the grant of succession certificates to the properties not exceeding Rs.10,00,000/-. Further, the learned Single Judge also noticed serious and unresolved disputes concerning succession and partition, which by their very nature required adjudication by a civil courtrather than in a summary adjudication of succession proceedings before the Administrator General. 20. It is manifest from the record that the succession certificate, together with the consequential mutation and gift settlement deed, came into existence notwithstanding the limited jurisdiction conferred upon the Administrator General under Section 29 of the Act, 1963. While the appellants sought to defend the validity of those transactions, the record clearly discloses that valuation of the property for exceeded the statutory threshold, thereby rendering the action of the Administrator General wholly without jurisdiction. 21. The conduct of the appellant No.1 in proceeding with transfer and mutation, during pendency of litigation, and in the face of the subsisting interim orders of restraint passed by the Court, is wholly unjustifiable, and clearly amounts to a violation of the authority of this Court. 22. A perusal of the application filed by the appellant No.1 before the Administrator General further reveals that, the appellant No.1 while specifically impleading his father (respondent No.1), his brother (respondent No.2), he nonetheless claimed to be the sole surviving heir of his grandfather, who was the original owner of the subject property. 22. A perusal of the application filed by the appellant No.1 before the Administrator General further reveals that, the appellant No.1 while specifically impleading his father (respondent No.1), his brother (respondent No.2), he nonetheless claimed to be the sole surviving heir of his grandfather, who was the original owner of the subject property. Thelearned Administrator General, however, lost sight of this crucial aspect and proceeded to mechanically grant succession certificate in favour of the appellant No.1 solely on the basis of self contradictory statements made by him and supported by PWs 2 and 3, who blindly endorsed his claim. Such conduct viewed cumulatively, clearly establishes collusion among them and renders the very foundation of the order unsustainable in law. 23. Thus, when the respondent No.1, who is the son of late Venkataiah, is very much alive, the claim of the appellant No.1 that he is the sole surviving heir of late Venkataiah, his grandfather is not only untenable but also indicative of malafide conduct. Such a claim, supported by contradictory statements and endorsed without scrutiny by the Administrator General, exposes the impropriety in the grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the appellant No.1. 24. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly relied upon the statutory frame work governing succession proceedings, and correctly concluded that where rival claims as to title and succession exist, the competent Civil Court alone is the proper forum for adjudication, and not the Administrator General exercising limited jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Act, 1963. 25. It is well settled that any order or decree passed by the court or quasi-judicial authority without jurisdiction is a nullity in the eye of law, incapable of conferring any rights upon the parties and liable tto be ignored altogether. 26. In Kiran Singh v . Chaman Paswan , [ AIR 1954 SC 340 ] the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under: “It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.” 27. Similarly, in Seth Hiralal Patni v. Sri Kalinath , [ AIR 1962 SC 199 ] the Honourable Supreme Court held that validity of any decree can be challenged on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction during any stage of the proceedings. This is mainly because the subject matter of the suit was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction. It can be inferred that judgment decided by the court of law lacking jurisdiction is void and its validity can be challenged whenever such defect is discovered. 28. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions squarely apply to the present case. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge rightly address both the issues of (i) lack of jurisdiction on the part of Administrator General, and (ii) the existence of serious disputes of succession and title, which necessarily required adjudication by a competent civil court in a full-fledged trial. 29. In the instant case, the issuance of succession certificate and execution of gift deed during the pendency of litigation, and in clear violation of statutory requirements and principles of natural justice, were rightly annulled. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity whatsoever and the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants cannot be sustained either in law or on facts. VIII. CONCLUSION: 30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that: a) The learned ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL ACT ed in excess of jurisdiction by entertaining the application and granting Letter of Administration/ Succession Certificate even though the value of the subject property farexceeded the statutory ceiling prescribed under Section 29 of the Administrators General Act, 1963. b) The learned Administrator General erred in venturing into the disputed questions of succession and title in respect of subject property, matters which lie exclusively within the domain of a competent civil court and fall wholly outside the limited jurisdiction conferred under Section 29 of the Act, 1963. b) The learned Administrator General erred in venturing into the disputed questions of succession and title in respect of subject property, matters which lie exclusively within the domain of a competent civil court and fall wholly outside the limited jurisdiction conferred under Section 29 of the Act, 1963. c) The proceedings before the Administrator General being summary in nature, there is neither scope for conducting a full-fledged trial, nor any appellate remedy provided against such orders of Administrator General. Consequently, we hold that the disputes relating to succession, title and possession of immovable properties cannot be adjudicated by the Administrator General. IX. RESULT: 31. For the reasons aforesaid, and in view of the findings on the issues framed, we find no merit in this Writ Appeal. The Judgment dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24854 of 2023 is hereby affirmed, and the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. 32. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of this Appeal shall not preclude appellant No.1 from working out his remedies, if any, before the competent civil court by instituting appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, the pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.