What is the object that is sought to be achieved with regard to the condition that a Family Member Certificate can be issued only if there is “no written objection from any other member of the family” as per Sub-para No.(i) of Para No.3 2023:APHC:228 12 titled as Procedure in G.O.Ms.No.145 REVENUE (SER.II) DEPARTMENT dated 25.04.2015. ii. Whether it is legitimate for a family member to put forth a condition precedent for giving up the death benefits and other statutory rights of inheritance for not raising any objection for issuance of Family Member Certificate? iii. Whether it is rational on the part of the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer (Respondent No.4 in the present case) to reject the grant of Family Member Certificate based on the nature of objections raised by the mother-in-law (Respondent No.5) of the Applicant?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

****

WRIT PETITION No. 646 OF 2022

Between:

Kollu (Rajana), Jyothi,

W/o Late Kollu Bangaru Raju,

Aged about 21 years, Housewife,

Resident of Lingapuram Village,

Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

 …. Petitioner

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Represented by its Principal Secretary,

Revenue Development Department,

Secretariat of A.P.,

Velagapudi, Amaravathi,

Guntur District.

2. The District Collector,

Visakhapatnam District,

At Visakhapatnam.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Narsipatnam,

Visakhapatnam District.

4. The Tahsildar,

Makavarapalem Mandal,

Visakhapatnam.

5. Kollu Varahalamma, W/o Late Chinnabbaiah,,

Aged about 59 years, Hindu, Housewife,

Resident of Pydipala Village,

Makavarapalem Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District.

 …. Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 05.01.2023

2023:APHC:228

2

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes / No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No

______________________________

G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

2023:APHC:228

3

* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

+ WRIT PETITION No.646 of 2022

% 05.01.2023

Between:

Kollu (Rajana), Jyothi,

W/o Late Kollur Bangaru Raju,

Aged about 21 years, Housewife,

Resident of Lingapuram Village,

Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

 …. Petitioner

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Represented by its Principal Secretary,

Revenue Development Department,

Secretariat of A.P.,

Velagapudi, Amaravathi,

Guntur District.

2. The District Collector,

Visakhapatnam District,

At Visakhapatnam.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Narsipatnam,

Visakhapatnam District.

4. The Tahsildar,

Makavarapalem Mandal,

Visakhapatnam.

5. Kollu Varahalamma, W/o Late Chinnabbaiah,,

Aged about 59 years, Hindu, Housewife,

Resident of Pydipala Village,

Makavarapalem Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District.

 …. Respondents

2023:APHC:228

4

! Counsel for Petitioner : Smt. T.V. Sridevi

^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Y. Subba Rao

 Sri Venkateswara Rao

Gudapati

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1) 1978 (1) SCC 248

2) (2010) 13 SCC 216

3) (1985) 3 SCC 545

2023:APHC:228

5

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION No. 646 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

(Amicus Curie); Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned Counsel for the Writ

Petitioner; Sri A. Sai Naveen, learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned Counsel for

the Respondent No.5 and Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under :

“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly

one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the condition

in procedure (i) of G.O.Ms.No.145 Revenue (SER-II) dated

25.04.2015 – “provided that there is no written objection

from any other member of the family” imposed by the 1st

Respondent for issuance of Family Member Certificate by

Tahsildar as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, ultra vires,

without authority of law, unreasonable, unjust, without

application of mind and violence of Article 14, and 21 of

Constitution of India and against the Principles of

Natural Justice and consequently struck down the

condition “provided that there is no written objection from

any other member of the family” in procedure (i) of

G.O.Ms.No.145 Revenue (SER-II) dated 25.04.2015 and

pass such other …”

FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. It is stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ

Petition that she is presently aged about 21 years; that on

2023:APHC:228

6

06.12.2019, she was married to one Sri Kollu Bangaru Raju as

per Hindu Vedic Rites by observing usual formalities of giving

gifts to the husband and his family members; that Sri Kollu

Bangaru Raju was in regular employment as Attender/Process

Server in District and Sessions Court (Mahila Court),

Visakhapatnam; that Sri Kollu Bangaru Raju, ‘while being

treated in Gayatri Vidya Parishad Hospital, Visakhapatnam’

died on 21.05.2021 due to COVID i.e., in just 1 ½ year of

marriage.

4. The widowed wife (the instant Writ Petitioner)

submitted an Application dated 26.06.2021 to the Principal

District Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking ‘Compassionate

Appointment’ to appoint her in a suitable post; considering the

Application of the Writ Petitioner, the District Judge,

Visakhapatnam issued Official Memorandum dated 05.07.2021

and 22.09.2021 (Ex.P.11) to furnish: (a) Financial Status

Certificate, (b) No Earning Certificate, (c) No Objection

Certificate from all other family members of the deceased

husband, and (e) Family Member Certificate.

5. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioner made

an Application before the Tahsildar-Respondent No.4 vide

2023:APHC:228

7

Application No.FAMC012102838201 dated 02.08.2021 (Ex.P.2);

that the Respondent No.4 did not issue Family Member

Certificate, and therefore, the Writ Petitioner made a

Representation dated 06.08.2021 to the District Collector,

Visakhapatnam District (Ex.P.2) to issue necessary directions to

the Respondent No.4 as regards issuance of the Family Member

Certificate; that on 12.11.2021, mother-in-law of the Writ

Petitioner (Respondent No.5) submitted objection to the District

Judge (Ex.P.5) stating that unless 75% of the death benefits of

her deceased son is paid to her and unless the Writ Petitioner

relinquishes her right on the single storied house and one acre

of land, she (the mother-in-law – Respondent No.5) will not give

“No Objection”; that, being caught-up in this unreasonable

demand by the Respondent No.5, the Writ Petitioner has

approached the District Legal Services Authority, Narsipatnam

for conducting of mediation between her and her mother-in-law

(Respondent No.5) by filing P.L.C.No.92 of 2021 dated

23.08.2021 (Ex.P.8) and in pursuance of the same, the

Respondent No.4 submitted his Report dated 29.10.2021

(Ex.P.4) stating that due to the disputes between wife of the

deceased and her mother-in-law as regards settlement of

Government benefits and other properties, the mother-in-law is

2023:APHC:228

8

unwilling to give consent for issuance of Family Member

Certificate; that the Writ Petitioner was constrained to approach

the police as she was being harassed by the family members;

and, that the Revenue Authorities have made it clear that

without the “written consent” of the family members, Family

Member Certificate cannot be granted.

6. In view of the seriousness of the issues that are

involved in the case, this Court has appointed Sri O. Manohar

Reddy, learned Senior Counsel to assist the Court in this regard

as Amicus Curie.

7. Respondent No.4/Tahsildar filed Counter Affidavit

reiterating the similar facts stating that the Respondent No.5

namely Kollu Varahalamma, who is the mother-in-law of the

Writ Petitioner has submitted the ‘written objections’ to the

Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) not to grant Family Member

Certificate in favour of her daughter-in-law until she

relinquishes 75% of death benefits of her deceased son, right

over single storied house and one acre of land in favour of her

mother-in-law. Para No.5 of the ‘written objections’ submitted

by the mother-in-law are extracted hereunder:

“It is humbly submitted that the family member certificate

are being granted for the purpose of benefits under social

2023:APHC:228

9

security schemes implemented by the Government in respect

of the Deceased family. As such, the willingness of all

dependent family members of the deceased is necessary to

extend such benefits. Otherwise, there will be a chance of

depriving of livelihood of one family member at the hands of

other family members of the deceased”

8. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the

attention of this Court to the G.O.Ms.No.145 REVENUE (SER.II)

DEPARTMENT dated 25.04.2015. It provides the Procedure for

issuance of Family Member Certificate and also authorises the

Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer for issuance of Family

Member Certificate. It imposes a condition that such Certificate

can be issued only if there is “no written objection from any other

member of the family”. Relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“Procedure:

i) On an application made through Meeseva, the Tahsildar

shall issue Family Member Certificate, provided there is no

written objection from any other member of the family”.

9. Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned Counsel for the Writ

Petitioner submitted that this indispensible condition has given

scope for the mother-in-law to compel the Writ Petitioner to

unduly relinquish not only 75% of death benefits but also the

legitimate right of inheritance over the properties of her

deceased husband. Learned Counsel has submitted that the

condition of consent from other family members has led to the

2023:APHC:228

10

situation where the mother-in-law could raise such unjust,

unreasonable and illegal demands as conditions precedent for

not raising written objection to issue a Family Member

Certificate.

10. Sri A. Sai Naveen, learned Counsel appearing for

mother-in-law/Respondent No.5 has sustained the actions of

Respondent No.5 and submitted that she had the inherent right

to make such a claim and to demand 75% of the death benefits

of her deceased son and to ask the Writ Petitioner to relinquish

her right of inheritance over the single storied house and one

acre of land on the ground that this should be given to her

second son (who is the brother of the deceased husband of the

Writ Petitioner).

11. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel has

placed on record an Order passed by the Learned Single Judge

of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh titled as

Vemluri Srinivasu Vs. State of Telangana (in W.P.No.32701

of 2017 dated 03.10.2017), wherein and whereby, the Learned

Single Judge of the combined High Court, has observed as

under:

2023:APHC:228

11

“4. In the instant case also, the Family Member

Certificate, which is specifically meant for social

security benefit, was issued in favour of the unofficial

respondents, against whom petitioner has grievance.

The Family Member Certificate cannot be the basis for

resolution of a civil dispute and any person claiming

as successor in interest or by any other means setting

up claim to a property, the person has to avail remedy

as available in law to establish right over the

properties. That being so, no direction as sought for

by the petitioner, to issue Family Member Certificate

or to conduct enquiry with reference to Family

Member Certificate already issued, can be granted. In

the instant case, petitioner does not challenge the

certificate stated to have been issued in favour of the

unofficial respondents. Hence, this Court is not

inclined to express any opinion on the certificate

issued.

5. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving

it open to the petitioner to work out his remedy

regarding the claim on the properties which are stated

to be belonging to Vemuluri Venkateshwarlu or on

issuance of Family Member Certificate dated

08.07.2015 in favour of the unofficial respondents.

There shall be no order as to costs”.

12. This Court appreciates the assistance of Sri

O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel who was kind

enough to be willing and to spare his valuable time to act as

Amicus Curie.

 13. Points for consideration:

i. What is the object that is sought to be achieved with regard

to the condition that a Family Member Certificate can be

issued only if there is “no written objection from any other

member of the family” as per Sub-para No.(i) of Para No.3

2023:APHC:228

12

titled as Procedure in G.O.Ms.No.145 REVENUE (SER.II)

DEPARTMENT dated 25.04.2015.

ii. Whether it is legitimate for a family member to put forth a

condition precedent for giving up the death benefits and

other statutory rights of inheritance for not raising any

objection for issuance of Family Member Certificate?

iii. Whether it is rational on the part of the Tahsildar/Mandal

Revenue Officer (Respondent No.4 in the present case) to

reject the grant of Family Member Certificate based on the

nature of objections raised by the mother-in-law

(Respondent No.5) of the Applicant?

ANALYSIS:

14. In this regard, the written objection raised by the

Respondent No.5 (mother-in-law of the Writ Petitioner) would

assume relevance. In the Endorsement submitted by the

Tahsildar dated 18.08.2021 (Ex.P.3), the Tahsildar has recorded

the written objections of Respondent No.5 as under:

“Enquiry was conducted with respect of above application

pertaining to issuance of Family Member Certificate due to

death of Kollu Bangaru Raju, S/o Late Chinnabai, resident of

Pydipala village due to COVID-19 on 05.07.2021. During

enquiry Smt. Kollu Varahalamma mother of deceased Kollu

Bangaru Raju objected for on the ground that some issues

are pending with regard to family and they have to be

solved. Hence both parties are directed to sort out their

disputes and approach this office for issuance of Family

Member Certificate. Hence the same is informed through this

endorsement.”

15. In the written communication by the Tahsildar to the

Hon’ble Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee,

Narasipatnam dated 29.10.2021 (Ex.P.4), it is stated as under:

2023:APHC:228

13

“I further submit that as per the Hon’ble Court,

Narasipatnam instructions again I conducted enquiry in the

village and she not agree to give consent to issue the family

member certificate. There were disputes between the

deceased wife and dependant mother to settle the Govt.

benefits and other properties. In the circumstances, I enable

to issue the family member certificate as per GO

Ms.145/Revenue (SER.II) Dept. dated 25.04.2015”.

16. With all these objections raised before the

Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, the Respondent No.5 still

had a fear that due to the hectic efforts of the Writ Petitioner,

Tahsildar may issue a Family Member Certificate despite her

objections, and therefore, in order to prevent the Writ Petitioner

from being considered for compassionate appointment,

Respondent No.5, has addressed a letter to the District Judge,

Visakhapatnam on 12.11.2021 (Ex.P.5). The translated version

(part of record) of the said letter is extracted hereunder:

 “My 2nd son and daughter-in-law Kollu Jyothi’s w/o Late

Bangaraju had mutual consultations in the presence of our

village elders and village sarpanches for the posthumous job

and death benefits, and agreed that with regard to Death

Benefits of my son, 25% be allotted to my daughter-in-law

Jyothi and the remaining 75% share, terraced house in the

village and Ac.1.00 cents land to be given to for livelihood of

my 2nd son for the rest of my life to live with my 2nd son and

both the parties agreed in the presence of the elders. The

next day it was decided to write the agreement and to go to

the Tahsildar’s office Makavarapalem Mandal, and get a

Family Member Certificate. But on the next day when called

for making an agreement she did not come and further came

to know that she is applying for a family member certificate

and trying to get a family certificate on her own without my

permission. In this regard, the Tahsildar, Makavarapalem

Mandalam called us and informed that as agreed to execute

2023:APHC:228

14

an agreement in the presence of the elders submit, then he

does not have any objection to issue a No objection certificate.

But the same was rejected by Smt. Kollu Jyoti’s w/o Late

Bangarraju.

 Hence it humbly prayed before the Hon’ble District

Judge, Visakhapatnam to take necessary steps to instruct

Smt. Kollu Jyothi my daughter in law to look after my

responsibility during my life time and so also take

responsibility of my 2nd son, and clear of all the family debts

made during the course of marriage of my elder son and

during job period or otherwise to agree for posthumous job

and 25% share of benefits to her and remaining 75% benefits

and house to be left to men to enable me to perform the

marriage of my second son which will be an ease to clear my

debts. So I request you take necessary steps as per law to

lead my life smoothly and render justice to me”.

17. In the light of the objections extracted herein above,

the prayer of the Writ Petitioner will have to be considered

taking into account the facts recorded herein above and the

written objections (extracted as above) raised by the Respondent

No.5.

POINT NO.1:

18. Sub-para No.(i) of Para No.3 of the G.O.Ms.No.145

REVENUE (SER.II) DEPARTMENT dated 25.04.2015 stipulates

that “the Tahsilidar shall issue Family Member Certificate,

provided there is no written objection from any other member of

the family”. The purpose for which the Caveat contained therein

that the Tahsildar shall issue Family Member Certificate “only if

there is no written objection from any other member of the family”

2023:APHC:228

15

appears to be that during the course of enquiry, the Tahsildar

would make it known to the family members that an Application

has been submitted by the person seeking Family Member

Certificate so that the family members will have an opportunity

to state whether the Applicant is “in fact” a member of the

family or not. In my view, except for this stated purpose where

any family member can raise a “written objection” before the

Tahsildar that the Applicant is not a member of their family,

there cannot be any other reason for providing such Caveat in

sub-para No.i of Para No.3 of the Government Order.

19. The Executive, while prescribing this caveat in Subpara No.(i) of Para No.3 of G.O.Ms.No.145 REVENUE (SER.II)

DEPARTMENT dated 25.04.2015 ought to have made it more

specific and clear and ought to have set out clear and

unambiguous parameters to the Tahsildar as to what kind of

objections can be entertained and what kind of objections raised

by the family members as against the Applicant cannot be

entertained.

20. It is very elementary that the Tahsildar cannot

entertain an objection from a family member only on the basis

that the Applicant, though is “in fact” a member of the family,

2023:APHC:228

16

cannot be entitled to a Family Member Certificate because the

Applicant has declined to give up her legitimate entitlement as

regards the death benefits or the right of inheritance from the

estate from her deceased husband. The Executive ought to have

foreseen such unreasonable objections which could arise and

ought to have infused sufficient clarifications/safeguards to

ensure that the provision for written objection shall not be

misused as a tool to deprive the legitimate rights of a genuine

member of a family who is seeking a Family Member Certificate.

POINT NO.2:

21. The underlying purpose of the caveat in Sub-Para

No.(i) of Para No.3 of the above mentioned Government Order

(G.O.Ms.No.145 dated 25.04.2015) has been explained above to

the effect that the family members can only raise an objection if

the Applicant who is seeking Family Member Certificate does

not belong to their family and a fake claim has been raised by

such an Applicant. In the present case, the very fact that the

mother-in-law/Respondent No.5, has raised a demand against

the Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner should give up 75%

of the death benefits in favour of the mother-in-law and that she

has to relinquish her right of inheritance entirely over the estate

of her husband (single storied house and one acre of land), itself

2023:APHC:228

17

clearly shows that the Respondent No.5 impliedly admitted that

the Writ Petitioner who is the Applicant seeking Family Member

Certificate, is “in fact” a member of the family which means that

she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sri Kollu Bangaru

Raju.

22. Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer is the Mandal

Executive Magistrate and he performs magisterial tasks on the

executive side insofar as the Mandal area is concerned. He is a

Gazetted Officer, and gets appointed on passing the Group-II

Services conducted by APPSC. Therefore, to understand this

elementary logic, it does not require a judicial mind, but an

Officer who is working in the capacity of Tahsildar ought to

know and ought to have understood that the nature of the

objections raised by the Respondent No.5 are contrary to the

letter and spirit of the proviso in Sub-para No.(i) of Para No.3 of

G.O.Ms.No.145 REVENUE (SER.II) DEPARTMENT dated

25.04.2015. This apart, the family members can only raise an

objection as regards whether or not the Applicant who is

seeking a Family Member Certificate is a member of the family.

The family members cannot settle any disputes except to the

extent indicated hereinabove; and cannot misuse this proviso to

compel an Applicant to relinquish his/her statutory rights

2023:APHC:228

18

which are naturally available to the Applicant by way of

inheritance or otherwise over the estate of her deceased

husband as a condition precedent so as to not to raise any

objections in writing.

POINT NO.3:

23. In the light of what is stated above, the decision of the

Tahsildar/Respondent No.4 that a Family Member Certificate

cannot be issued on account of “written objections” raised by

Respondent No.5, is irrational and unreasonable and hence is

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is relevant

to cite Para No.7 in Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India 1978

(1) SCC 248:

“7. Now, the question immediately arises as to what is the

requirement of Article 14 : what is the content and reach of

the great equalising principle enunciated in this article? There

can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution.

It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation

of our democratic republic. And, therefore, it must not be

subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach. No

attempt should be made to truncate its all-embracing scope

and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist

magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects

and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within

traditional and doctrinaire limits. We must reiterate here

what was pointed out by the majority in E.P.

Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3 : 1974 SCC

(L&S) 165 : (1974) 2 SCR 348] namely, that “from a

positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to

arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn

enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic, while

the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch.

2023:APHC:228

19

Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal

both according to political logic and constitutional law and is

therefore violative of Article 14”. Article 14 strikes at

arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and

equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which

legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of

equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a

brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by

Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to

be in conformity with Article 14. It must be “right and just

and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise,

it .would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article

21 would not be satisfied”.

24. Even in the absence of any guideline or safeguard

explaining the purport of the proviso in Sub-para No.(i) of Para

No.3 of the Government Order, if an Officer of the rank of

Tahsildar, cannot understand the underlying purpose for which

the proviso has been incorporated in Sub-para No.(i) of Para

No.3 and decides that a Certificate cannot be issued based on

the kind of objections raised by the Respondent No.5, such a

decision partakes the character of perversity, and therefore, is

liable to be quashed on this ground also.

25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Municipal

Committee, Hosharpur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board

and Others (2010) 13 SCC 216), at Para No.28 defined the

word “Perversity”. Para No.28 is usefully extracted hereunder:

“28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant

material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the

finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of

irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is

2023:APHC:228

20

rendered infirm in the eye of the law. If the findings of the Court are

based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or

evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the

findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at

those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if

the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture

and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of nonapplication of mind and thus, stands vitiated. (Vide Bharatha

Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan[(2010) 11 SCC 483 : AIR 2010 SC

2685] .)”

26. Having been married to Kollu Bangaru Raju on

06.12.2019 who met with an early death (due to COVID-19), the

Writ Petitioner became a widow within 1 ½ year of getting

married. The Writ Petitioner suffered such a tragedy in life at a

very early age. Due to uncertainty of her future, she has decided

to avail the benefit from the scheme of Compassionate

Appointment which is benevolently provided by the Government

as a source of livelihood for the rest of her life.

27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and Ors

Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors (1985) 3 SCC 545

held that Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. The written

objections raised by the Respondent No.5, are not legally

sustainable inasmuch as the Respondent No.5 seeks to deprive

the right of livelihood of the Writ Petitioner if her demand is not

honoured by the Writ Petitioner and that would clearly offend

2023:APHC:228

21

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Para Nos.32 and 33 are

extracted hereunder:

“32. As we have stated while summing up the petitioners'

case, the main plank of their argument is that the right to

life which is guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to

livelihood and since, they will be deprived of their livelihood

if they are evicted from their slum and pavement dwellings,

their eviction is tantamount to deprivation of their life and is

hence unconstitutional. For purposes of argument, we will

assume the factual correctness of the premise that if the

petitioners are evicted from their dwellings, they will be

deprived of their livelihood. Upon that assumption, the

question which we have to consider is whether the right to

life includes the right to livelihood. We see only one answer

to that question, namely, that it does. The sweep of the right

to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. It

does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or

taken away as, for example, by the imposition and

execution of the death sentence, except according to

procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the

right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the

right to livelihood because, no person can live without the

means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right

to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional

right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his

right to life would be to deprive him of his means of

livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would

not only denude the life of its effective content and

meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live.

And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in

accordance with the procedure established by law, if the

right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to

life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside

what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral

component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to

livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life.

Indeed, that explains the massive migration of the rural

population to big cities. They migrate because they have no

means of livelihood in the villages. The motive force which

propels their desertion of their hearths and homes in the

village is the struggle for survival, that is, the struggle for

life. So unimpeachable is the evidence of the nexus between

life and the means of livelihood. They have to eat to live:

only a handful can afford the luxury of living to eat. That

they can do, namely, eat, only if they have the means of

2023:APHC:228

22

livelihood. That is the context in which it was said by

Douglas, J. in Baksey [347 US 442, 472 : 98 L Ed 829

(1954)] that the right to work is the most precious liberty

that man possesses. It is the most precious liberty because,

it sustains and enables a man to live and the right to life is

a precious freedom. “Life”, as observed by Field, J.

in Munnv. Illinois [(1877) 94 US 113] means something more

than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the

deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by

which life is enjoyed. This observation was quoted with

approval by this Court in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR

1963 SC 1295 : (1964) 1 SCR 332 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 329] .

33. Article 39(a) of the Constitution, which is a Directive

Principle of State Policy, provides that the State shall, in

particular, direct its policy towards securing that the

citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an

adequate means of livelihood. Article 41, which is another

Directive Principle, provides, inter alia, that the State shall,

within the limits of its economic capacity and development,

make effective provision for securing the right to work in

cases of unemployment and of undeserved want. Article 37

provides that the Directive Principles, though not enforceable

by any court, are nevertheless fundamental in the

governance of the country. The principles contained in

Articles 39(a) and 41 must be regarded as equally

fundamental in the understanding and interpretation of the

meaning and content of fundamental rights. If there is an

obligation upon the State to secure to the citizens an

adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would

be sheer pedantry to exclude the right to livelihood from the

content of the right to life. The State may not, by affirmative

action, be compellable to provide adequate means of

livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person, who is

deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just

and fair procedure established by law, can challenge the

deprivation as offending the right to life conferred by Article

21”.

MANDAMUS TO AMEND G.O.Ms.No.145 REVENUE (SER.II)

DEPARTMENT DATED 25.04.2015 :

28. The dictum of a Court explaining the purport of a

particular provision more often than not would only be confined

2023:APHC:228

23

to that Judgment and to the practicing Advocates for citing it

before the Courts of law. The clarification or the interpretation

which is given by a Court of law, very rarely percolates down to

the Officers who actually implement such provision of law. Due

to lack of knowledge, the Officers who are endowed with the

power to implement a particular provision of law or rule, in the

process of execution, would again go by the same text (of the

law or the rule) and tend to take the same mistaken view due to

lack of knowledge of clarification/interpretation or the

explanation given by the Court as an existing precedent.

29. If the clarification/explanation/interpretation given

by the Court attains finality, it shall nevertheless be

incorporated into the same provision of law by giving clarity (by

inserting a proviso) or in the form of a safeguard. If this is

followed, the Executive will not commit the same mistake that

was set right by the Court in an earlier Judgment. These

measures would prevent the citizen of the hardship of once

again approaching the Court.

30. Respondent No.5 has subjected the Writ Petitioner to

extreme hardship, more so at a time when the Writ Petitioner

has lost her husband and is seeking Compassionate

2023:APHC:228

24

Appointment as a source of her livelihood, by raising such

demands which cannot be sustained in law and has subjected

the Writ Petitioner to run from pillar to post and has made her

to approach this Court for vindicating her rights. It is obvious

that the attempt of Respondent No.5 is to hold the Writ

Petitioner for a ransom for an unjust and illegal demand.

Consciously or otherwise, the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue

Officer i.e., Respondent No.4 has also contributed to this

misfeasance.

FINDING:

31. This Court declares the decision of the

Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer i.e., Respondent No.4 in

holding that the Family Member Certificate cannot be issued in

favour of the Writ Petitioner because of the “written objections”

filed by the mother-in-law (Respondent No.5) as irrational,

unreasonable, illegal and perverse and hence it is set aside.

Respondent No.4 is directed to issue Family Member Certificate

in favour of the Writ Petitioner within two (2) weeks from the

date of submission of this Order by the Writ Petitioner.

2023:APHC:228

25

Directions to the Executive (Principal Secretary,

Revenue Department):

32. The concerned Department, through the Principal

Secretary, Revenue, shall suitably amend the G.O.Ms.No.145

REVENUE (SER.II) DEPARTMENT dated 25.04.2015, by making

it clear that written objection can be only with regard to whether

the Applicant is a member of the family or not. After making

the Amendment, necessary directions shall also be issued to the

primary implementing authorities i.e., Tahsildars/Mandal

Revenue Officers in the State as regards the amendment and to

the effect that the Officers shall not become parties to obviate

the evil designs of the unscrupulous members in the family who

use this proviso of a “written objection” as a tool to deprive the

legitimate rights of the Applicants.

33. Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions.

There shall be no order as to costs. List this case after 8 (eight)

weeks for compliance of the directions.

2023:APHC:228

26

34. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in

terms of this order.

 _____________________________________________

 (GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J)

Dt: .01.2023.

JKS

L.R Copy to be marked : [YES / NO]

2023:APHC:228

27

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION No. 646 OF 2022

05.01.2023

Note: Issue C.C. by today

B/O

JKS

2023:APHC:228