ORDER : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the order, dated 23.09.2023, in Case No.G/12320/2018, passed by respondent No.3 by declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct respondent No.3 to act in accordance with the directions of this Court in CRP.No.539 of 2010, vide orders, dated 11.08.2017. 2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri M.Surender Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt. E.Subhavathi, learned counsel-on-record for respondent Nos.5 to 22. 3. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner in the writ affidavit are that originally, his father-Ahmed Ali Siddiqui was owner of land admeasuring Acs.59-30 guntas in Sy.No.396 of Chattanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that one Katika Gopoji was the protected tenant of that land, but he was in possession of land only to an extent of Acs.27.16 guntas; that since the said protected tenant sub-leased a part of land to one K.Sayanna, the original owner terminated the tenancy in respect of the entire land by notice dated 07.10.1968 and filed an application before the Tahsildar for recovery of possession under Section 32 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1950); that subsequently, Sy.No.396 was sub-divided into Sy.Nos.652 to 657 and the protected tenant was in possession of land in Sy.Nos.652, 656 and 657 and he was not in possession of land in Sy.Nos.653, 656 and 655; that an enquiry was conducted by then Tahsildar, who, by order dated 19.02.1974 terminated the tenancy and directed eviction of protected tenant-Gopoji as well as his sub- tenant; that consequently, the name of Gopoji was rounded off and thus, the protected tenancy stood terminated. The said proceedings were challenged by the protected tenant-Gopoji before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar in File No.B7/1/1974, but the same was dismissed and he has further challenged the said order in CRP.No.1136 of 1975 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the said Revision Petition was also dismissed on 07.04.1976. 3.1. The said proceedings were challenged by the protected tenant-Gopoji before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar in File No.B7/1/1974, but the same was dismissed and he has further challenged the said order in CRP.No.1136 of 1975 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the said Revision Petition was also dismissed on 07.04.1976. 3.1. It is further averred that after the death of Gopoji, his grandsons by name Ramchanderji, Kondaji, Nagoji and Baloji made an application to Tahsildar on 03.02.1990, under Section 32 (1) of the Act, 1950, for restoration of possession in respect of land in sy.No.396(old), however, the same was closed on 07.11.1998 on the ground that the sole respondent therein-Ahmed Ali Siddiqui, i.e., father of petitioner, expired and hence, the petition is abated. That later, when legal representatives of Gopoji filed an application in October, 2006 before the M.R.O. for supply of certified copy of order dated 07.11.1998, a Memo dated 18.10.2006 was issued informing them that the said file is not traceable; that basing on the said memo, an appeal was filed by the LRs of the original protected tenant-Gopoji before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, in the year 2007 stating that they came to know about the abatement order in the year 2005 only, and Joint Collector allowed the same on 16.06.2007 directing Tahsildar to conduct de novo enquiry. 3.2. 3.2. The order passed by Joint Collector was challenged in CRP.No.4188 of 2007 and the same was allowed on 01.12.2008 remanding the matter to the Joint Collector with a direction to decide the matter by giving opportunity to the parties; that on remand, the Joint Collector passed order dated 27.01.2010, remanding the matter to Tahsildar for de novo enquiry and the said order was assailed by the petitioner in CRP.No.539 of 2010 and the same was dismissed on 11.08.2017 with an observation that the Joint Collector ought not to have dealt with the merits of the case while remanding the matter for de novo enquiry to the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar was directed to decide the case afresh without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Joint Collector in the order, dated 27.01.2010; that the petitioner appeared before the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, and requested for supply of certified copies of certain documents vide application dated 13.02.2019; there were no subsequent hearings due to Covid-19 during the years 2020-22; that the Tahsildar did not furnish documents sought for by the petitioner, despite repeated requests. 3.3. In the meanwhile, the unofficial respondents filed an application under Section 40 of the Act, 1950, to declare them as successors of original protected tenant-Gopoji; that the petitioner filed counter opposing the said application on the ground that Tahsildar has no power to grant succession and the parties concerned have to approach civil Court for succession; that the Tahsildar issued notice of hearing dated 01.07.2023 and proceeded with the matter for final hearing on 05.08.2023 and that, without considering the request of the petitioner for supply of documents and without hearing the petitioner, the Tahsildar passed the impugned order declaring the unofficial respondents as successors of original protected tenant-Gopoji in respect of land admeasuring Acs.33.16 guntas in Sy.No.396/1(old) corresponding to new Sy.Nos.653, 654 and 655 under Section 40 of the Act, 1950. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the unofficial respondents i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 22, inter alia denying the averments made in the writ affidavit and it is specifically contended that as per the records, Gopoji was protected tenant of the total extent of Acs.60.33 guntas of land, which comprises Acs.8.13 guntas in Sy.No.652, Acs.10.38 guntas in Sy.No.657, Acs.8.08 guntas in Sy.No.656, Acs.13.36 guntas in Sy.No.655 and Acs.7.16 guntas in Sy.No.653 and Acs.12.29 guntas in Sy.No.654; that tenancy was terminated only to an extent of Acs.27.17 gutnas in Sy.Nos.652, 656 and 657 and tenancy in respect of balance extent of land admeasuring Acs.34.01 in Sy.Nos.653, 654 and 655 was never terminated, but, the landholder in connivance of the revenue authorities has got the name of the protected tenant rounded off in respect of entire extent of Acs.60.33 guntas. It is further stated that during the pendency of proceedings for restoration of possession of land, the protected tenant-Gopoji expired leaving behind the unofficial respondents as his legal heirs and therefore, they filed an application under Section 40 of the Act, 1950 filed seeking succession of tenancy rights of the original protected tenant. It is further stated that the petitioner filed counter merely denying the averments in the application, questioning the authority of the Tahsildar, and no evidence was placed to substantiate his objections, therefore, the Tahsildar rightly granted succession in favour of the official respondents in terms of Section 40 (2) of the Act, 1950. 4.1. It is further stated that as per Section 99 of the Act, 1950, there is specific bar on the jurisdiction of the civil Court insofar as the issues which are required to be dealt with by the Tahsildar/MRO and the MRO/Tahsildar has absolute authority to decide on succession under Section 40 of the Act. It is further stated that during enquiry, despite the Tahsildar giving plenty of opportunities to the petitioner since 2019, he delayed the enquiry on one pretext or the other and as such, the matter was finally decided by the Tahsildar on 23.09.2023 vide the impugned order and hence, prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in clear violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that it appears that respondent No.3 was influenced by the observations made by the Joint Collector in the order dated 27.01.2010 and further, he failed to properly appreciate the earlier proceedings and thus, came to an erroneous conclusion that tenancy was terminated only to an extent of Acs.27.17 guntas, which is contrary to the records. He further submitted that respondent No.3 cannot entertain the application for succession under Section 40 of the Act, 1950 and this Court in various judgments has held that such power lies in civil Court and not with the Tahsildar. He further submitted that the proceedings commenced under Section 32 (1) of the Act were remanded by the Joint Collector to Tahsildar, however, the same were converted into the proceedings under Section 40 of the Act, 1950, which is illegal and impermissible and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that though the Act, 1950 provides for an appeal under Section 90 thereof before the Joint Collector, since the same is not an efficacious alternative remedy and further, since there is violation of principles of natural justice and there is immediate threat of dispossession of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition and the same is maintainable. 6. In support of his submission that MRO/Tahsildar is not empowered to grant succession under Section 40 of the Act, 1950, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) B.Malla Reddy and others Vs. State of Telangana and others , 2021(5) ALD 595 (TS) (ii) Order dated 04.07.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3002 of 2022. (iii) Maddagunta Muthamma and others Vs. The Joint Collector, Hyderabad and others , MANU/AP/1120/2016 7. With regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- (i) Godrej Sara Lee Ltd Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, AIR 2023 SC 781 8. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Writ Petition cannot be dismissed mechanically on the ground that alternative remedy available under relevant statutes has not been availed by the parties. 9. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, AIR 2023 SC 781 8. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Writ Petition cannot be dismissed mechanically on the ground that alternative remedy available under relevant statutes has not been availed by the parties. 9. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for unofficial respondents submitted that tenancy of original protected tenant- Gopoji was terminated only to an extent of Acs.27.17 vide proceedings dated 19.02.1974, however, in the revenue records, his name was rounded off in respect of the entire extent, which is illegal, improper and contrary to proceedings dated 19.02.974. He further submitted that MRO/Tahsildar is empowered to entertain and decide an application filed under Section 40 of the Act, 1950 for succession and in fact, there is specific bar as to the jurisdiction of civil Court under Section 99 of the Act, 1950. He further submitted that only where there is serious dispute as to the claim of succession or there are any disputes/differences among the legal heirs of protected tenant, the matter can be referred to civil Court, since it requires detailed examination. 10. Learned senior counsel further contended that in the present case, there are neither disputes among the legal heirs of protected tenant with regard to succession nor there is dispute as to the claim of succession, therefore, MRO/Tahsildar has rightly granted succession in favour of the unofficial respondents and the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 11. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice, learned senior counsel for the unofficial respondents submitted that when the matter was remanded by the Joint Collector to the Tahsildar in the year 2019 for conducting de novo enquiry, several opportunities were given to the petitioner to participate and contest the matter, but he dragged the matter on one pretext or the other and further, the petitioner filed an application for supply of certified copies of certain documents, which, in fact, are in his custody itself. He specifically referred to the observations made by the Tahsildar in the impugned order, which are extracted hereunder:- “From 07.03.2019 onwards, whenever the case is taken up few hearings the respondent herein seeking adjournments by filing Memos enclosing Copy of application dated 14.03.2019. He specifically referred to the observations made by the Tahsildar in the impugned order, which are extracted hereunder:- “From 07.03.2019 onwards, whenever the case is taken up few hearings the respondent herein seeking adjournments by filing Memos enclosing Copy of application dated 14.03.2019. This sort of approach on the part of respondents in the matter speaks volumes about their delaying tactics and non co-operation for the disposal of long pending when almost all the papers which are relevant related to the present case are very much available with them which they have filed in the High Court along with their Revision Petition in CRP.No.539 of 2010.” 12. In support of his aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel for the unofficial respondents has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Phr Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and others , 2024 INSC 297 (ii) Order dated 08.06.2023 passed by this Court in WP.No.24514 of 2022 13. In view of the aforesaid pleadings of both the parties and the submissions advanced by learned senior counsel appearing for both the parties, the issues that arise for determination are:- (1) Whether the tenancy of the protected tenant-Gopoji was terminated in respect of the entire extent of land in Sy.No.396 (old) or only in respect of Acs.27.17 guntas? (2) Whether the MRO/Tahsildar is empowered to issue succession under Section 40 of the Act, 1950? (3) Whether the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice? Issue No.1 :- 14. A close scrutiny of the material available on record, particularly the order dated 19.02.1974 passed by the Tahsildar, at the instance of the landholder, discloses that the opening sentence therein reads as hereunder:- “The facts of the case are that one Sri Ahmed Ali Siddiqui pattadar of Sy.No.396 old corresponding to Sy.Nos.653, 656 and 657 known as Gundu Chelka @ Marrichettu Venku Chelka, admeasuring Acs.27.17 guntas situated at Chattanpally Village, filed an application before the Tahsildar........” 15. The above narration of facts of the case by the Tahsildar is obviously based on the application, admittedly, filed by the landholder under Section 32 (2) of the Act, 1950. The notice got issued by the landholder under Section 19 (d) of the Act, 1950, to the protected tenant-Gopoji does not specifically mention the survey numbers and the extent of land in the survey numbers. The notice got issued by the landholder under Section 19 (d) of the Act, 1950, to the protected tenant-Gopoji does not specifically mention the survey numbers and the extent of land in the survey numbers. In such an event, the facts of the case, would be narrated by the Tahsildar only based on the application filed by the landholder, which cannot be disputed or controverted. 16. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in the present Writ Petition, the petitioner on one hand averred that land admeasuring Acs.59.33 guntas belonged to his father and that one Gopoji was the protected tenant of that land and on the other hand, he averred that the said protected tenant-Gopoji was in possession of only an extent of Acs.27.16 guntas. 17. A combined reading of the aforesaid fact, as averred by the petitioner in the writ affidavit, and the order dated 19.02.1974 of the Tahsildar, wherein as against the ‘subject’ it is mentioned as Tenancy-under Section 32 (2) of Tenancy Act – Sy.Nos.652, 656 and 657 situated at Chattanpally Village –Shadnagar taluq, it is discernible that in fact, the application filed by the landholder at the first instance before the Tahsildar was only for termination of tenancy in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.652, 656 and 657 and the same was accordingly allowed. 18. Further, perusal of impugned order discloses that the Tahsildar has observed therein that in the Final record of Agricultural Tenancies Part-I, vide notification dated 17.08.1950 published in Hyderabad gazette dated 28.08.1950, the name of Gopoji is recorded as protected tenant in respect of extent of Acs.59-33 guntas in Sy.No.396. It is further evident that as per Wasool Baqui, prepared in the year 1956, after re-survey, Sy.No.396 (old) correlates to new Sy.Nos.652 to 657. 19. Therefore, from the above documents, it is evident that Gopoji was protected tenant for the entire extent of land in Sy.No.396. 20. Further, no material is placed on record by the petitioner to show that the tenancy of Gopoji was terminated in respect of entire extent of Sy.No.396 (old). The observations recorded by the Tahsildar in the impugned order appear to be on thorough scrutiny of the revenue records. 20. Further, no material is placed on record by the petitioner to show that the tenancy of Gopoji was terminated in respect of entire extent of Sy.No.396 (old). The observations recorded by the Tahsildar in the impugned order appear to be on thorough scrutiny of the revenue records. Therefore, in view of the foregoing reasons, it can be safely observed that the tenancy of Gopoji was terminated only in respect of land in Sy.Nos.652, 656 and 657 and not in respect of Sy.Nos.653, 654 and 655. This issue is answered accordingly. Issue No.2 :- 21. To adjudicate this issue, it is apposite to extract Section 40 of the Act, 1950, which reads as hereunder:- “(1) All rights of a protected tenant shall be heritable. (2) If a protected tenant dies, his heir or heirs shall be entitled to hold the tenancy on the same terms and conditions on which such protected tenant was holding the land at the time of his death and such heirs may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, sub- divide inter se according to their shares the land comprised in the tenancy to which they have succeeded. (3) If a protected tenant dies without leaving any heirs, all his rights shall be extinguished.” 22. A reading of the above provision indicates that on death of protected tenant, his legal heir(s) are entitled to hold tenancy and the heirs include legal descendants by blood or adoption, and in the absence of any such descendants, his widow so long as she does not remarry. 23. In the instant case, the unofficial respondents are claiming to be legal heirs of the deceased protected tenant-Gopoji and they filed an application for issuance of succession and the Tahsildar by exercising the powers under Section 40 of the Act, 1950, granted succession, as there are no rival claims and further, the petitioner also did not place any material disproving the claim of the unofficial respondents. 24. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has specifically raised objection as to the power/authority of the Tahsildar to grant succession in favour of the unofficial respondents, and submitted that the unofficial respondents ought to have approached the civil Court to declare them as legal heirs and thereafter, have to approach the Tahsildar for granting succession. 24. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has specifically raised objection as to the power/authority of the Tahsildar to grant succession in favour of the unofficial respondents, and submitted that the unofficial respondents ought to have approached the civil Court to declare them as legal heirs and thereafter, have to approach the Tahsildar for granting succession. However, in the instant case, no such procedure was adopted and the Tahsidlar without their being any declaration from the civil court has granted succession in favour of the unofficial respondents, which is improper and without any authority and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 25. In B.Malla Reddy ’s case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 40 of the Act, 1950, does not confer any power on any revenue authority much less MRO to decide disputed questions of succession. It is further held that where there are serious disputes among the legal heirs of protected tenant and there is claim of any third party, the Tahsildar cannot determine the same and it has to be decided by a civil Court. 26. In the instant case, there are no such disputes among the legal heirs of deceased protected tenant-Gopoji or there are any third party claims, therefore, the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and this Court, accordingly, holds that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tahsildar has rightly exercised the power conferred on him and issued succession in favour of the unofficial respondents. The issue is answered accordingly. Issue No.3 :- 27. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not given opportunity to participate in the enquiry and thus, the principles of natural justice are violated, and hence, he approached this Court by way of filing the Writ Petition though appeal is provided under the Act, 1950 against the impugned order. 28. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application to provide certified copies of certain documents in the year 2019 and the same were not provided and as such, the petitioner could not participate in the enquiry proceedings. The Tahsildar instead of providing the certified copies of the documents sought for by the petitioner and affording opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case, proceeded with the case and passed the impugned order. 29. The Tahsildar instead of providing the certified copies of the documents sought for by the petitioner and affording opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case, proceeded with the case and passed the impugned order. 29. Perusal of record goes to show that the Tahsildar specifically observed that since 07.03.2019, whenever the case was taken up for hearing, the petitioner was seeking adjournment by filing memos by duly enclosing a copy of application filed seeking to supply certain documents. It is further observed that all the documents sought for by the petitioner are in fact available with him itself and in fact, he has filed the said documents before this Court in CRP.No.539 of 2010, therefore, the petitioner was only trying to protract the matter. 30. It is also relevant to note that this Court vide order dated 11.08.2017 in CRP.No.539 of 2010 has remanded the matter to MRO with a direction to dispose of the application preferably within a period of three months from the date of the said order. 31. In the light of the specific observations of the Tahsildar in the impugned order that the documents sought for by the petitioner are very much available with him and in fact, the same were filed by him in CRP.No.539 of 2010, however, the petitioner was seeking adjournments on the pretext of non-supply of the said documents. This Court does not find any merit in the contention put forth by the learned senior counsel for petitioner that principles of natural justice were violated by not giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as the said contention is contrary to record and therefore, this Writ Petition filed against the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar, bypassing the remedy of appeal before the Joint Collector, is not maintainable. The petitioner ought to have filed an appeal under Section 90 of the Act, 1950 against the impugned order. 32. It is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Phr Invent Educational Society ’s case (cited supra) has carved out certain exceptions when a Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy, which includes that when an order has been passed in total violation of principles of natural justice. 33. 33. In the instant case, as observed supra, this Court holds that there is no violation of principles of natural justice, as pleaded by the petitioner, therefore, this Writ Petition does not fall under the exceptions carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, and as such, cannot be entertained by this Court. 34. Further, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd ’s case (cited supra) has no application to the present case, as the petitioner has failed to make out any exceptional circumstances to file the Writ Petition for bypassing the remedy of filing appeal under Section 90 of the Act. 35. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the petitioner. Conclusion :- 36. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from availing alternative remedy available under law, if he is so advised. 37. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. Interim order dated 16.10.2023 granted by this Court stands vacated. No costs.