HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 25789 of 2001 ORDER: There are 7 writ petitioners out of which, petitioner No.4 died and the learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo to that effect. In this writ petition, the petitioners sought for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring that the release orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad-1st respondent in CCLA No. NA2/111/1999, dated 28.6.1999; R.C.No.NA2/83/2000 dated 1.4.2000; CCLA No.NA2/113/2000 dated 25.5.2000; and CCLA No. NA2/183/2000 dated 25.5.2000 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reopen the case by giving opportunity to the petitioners and release the properties to the extent of their shares and to put them in possession thereof. This Court by order dated 23.4.2002 while admitting the writ petition, suspended the impugned proceedings in W.P.M.P.No.32638 of 2001. The following orders are impugned in the writ petition: (i) Proceedings in CCLA No.NA2/111/99 dated 28.6.1999 are passed by the 1st respondent on the application filed by one Najeebuddin Ghalib, S/o.late Shamsuddin Ghalib-2nd respondent herein, who claimed to be the G.P.A. holder of 27 legal heirs of Galib Jung Liaquddain Bahadur Galibul-Mulk Muslimjung seeking to release the properties mentioned therein i.e. Mulgi bearing MCH No.20-4-1238, near Charminar. Through the said proceedings, the 1st respondent passed an order releasing the said property from the Superintendence of Court of Wards (CCLA) in favour of the 2nd respondent. (ii) Proceedings in R.C. No.NA2/83/2000 dated 1.4.2000 are passed by the 1st respondent on the application filed by the 2nd respondent claiming to be the G.P.A. holder of legal heirs of Galib Jung Liaquddain Bahadur Galibul-Mulk Muslimjung seeking to release the properties mentioned therein i.e. Mahaboob Shahi Mill with land of Ac.25.00, houses, building, equipment, machinery and infrastructure, situated at Heerapur Village, Gulbarga District in Karnataka State. Through the said proceedings, the 1st respondent passed an order releasing the said property from the Superintendence of Court of Wards (CCLA) in favour of the 2nd respondent. (iii) Proceedings in CCLA No.NA2/113/2000 dated 25.5.2000 are passed by the 1st respondent on the application filed by the 2nd respondent claiming to be the G.P.A. holder of legal heirs of Galib Jung Liaquddain Bahadur Galibul-Mulk Muslimjung for releasing of the properties mentioned therein i.e. Bungalow No.109, New No.1-7-252 to 254, admeasuring 2662.00 sq.yds. equivalent to 2225.69 sq.mtrs. with building on 700.00 sq.yds., situated at Oxford Street, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. Through the said proceedings, the 1st respondent passed an order releasing the said property from the Superintendence of Court of Wards (CCLA) in favour of the 2nd respondent. (iv) Proceedings in CCLA No.NA2/183/2000 dated 25.5.2000 are passed by the 1st respondent on the application filed by the 2nd respondent claiming to be the G.P.A. holder of legal heirs of Galib Jung Liaquddain Bahadur Galibul-Mulk Muslimjung for releasing of the property mentioned therein i.e. Laiqud-Dowla Theatre, known as DREAM LAND THEATRE, measuring 12,500.00 sq.yds., equivalent to 10,451.25 sq.mtrs. with Cinema Hall and appurtinents buildings over an area of 825.63 sq.mtrs., surrounded by compound wall, situated at Club Road, Secunderabad with Cantonment No.221/B. Through the said proceedings, the 1st respondent passed an order releasing the said property from the Superintendence of Court of Wards (CCLA) in favour of the 2nd respondent. The case of the petitioners is that they are the legal heirs of late Galib Jung, who was one of the Nobles of erstwhile Nizam’s State of Hyderabad. During his lifetime, he possessed vast moveable and immovable properties and he died in the year 1314 F. (1905 AD) leaving behind his widow and minor son by name Nasiruddin Ghalib. In view of the fact that late Ghalib Jung’s wife was parda nashin lady and son was a minor, the H.E.H. The Nizam through Firman dated 18th Rabi-us-Sani 1343 Hijri took over possession of the properties and kept them under the supervision and management of the Court of Wards to protect and safeguard the said properties. It is the case of the petitioners that some of the properties of their great grand father late Ghalib Jung were released in the year 1950 and the remaining major portion of the properties are still to be released from the superintendence of Court of Wards in their favour being the legal heirs of late Ghalib Jung. It is their case that the petitioners 3 to 7 are the children of late Hameeduddin Ghalib. The first petitioner is the daughter of late Nasiruddin Ghalib and sister of late Hameeduddin Ghalib. The said late Hameeduddin Ghalib, father of petitioners 2 to 7 and the first petitioner were brothers and sisters being the children of late Nasiruddin Ghalib. The said Nasiruddin Ghalib was only son of late Ghalib Jung. Thus, they are the legal representatives and heirs of late Ghalib Jung. It is alleged that one Najeebuddin Ghalib-2nd respondent herein, who is the cousin of the second petitioner made applications before the 1st respondent claiming to be the G.P.A. holder of the petitioners and other legal heirs of late Ghalib Jung and requested for release of the properties that are under the superintendence of Court of Wards claiming that the legal heirs have executed a general power of attorney in his favour on 24.9.1987. It is also stated that it came to their notice through Writ petition No.22123 of 2000 that the 2nd respondent is making efforts to get the properties released on his name on the basis of the alleged G.P.A. dated 24.9.1987 said to have been executed by some of the legal heirs of late Ghalib Jung. It is stated that neither the 2nd petitioner nor any other petitioners have executed any G.P.A. in favour of the 2nd respondent authorizing him to represent their rights. Thereafter, they gave a legal notice to the 2nd respondent dated 1.10.2001 stating that they never executed any G.P.A. in favour of the 2nd respondent and the alleged G.P.A. relied on by him is forged and fabricated. Therefore, as the 1st respondent ordered for releasing of the properties through the impugned proceedings basing on the representations/applications made by the 2nd respondent, the same are challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent, who claimed to be the G.P.A. holder of the petitioners, is no way concerned with the properties and the petitioners never executed any G.P.A. in his favour and he has no authority to make such applications before the 1st respondent for releasing of the properties under Section 53 of the Hyderabad Court of Wards Act (No.XII of 1950 F.) (for short ‘the Act’). It is contended that the alleged G.P.A. is sham and forged to deprive the legitimate right of the petitioners over the properties in the capacity of legal heirs and thereby he wanted to knock away the properties. The learned counsel further submits that though the petitioners and others are the legal heirs, who are 27 in number and had substantial interest in the properties in question, no notice of whatsoever was issued to the petitioners or any other legal heirs before passing the impugned proceedings releasing the properties in favour of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it is contended that the action of the 1st respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice. Nextly, he submits that one Moinuddin Ghalib, S/o.late Nasiruddin Ghalib and 10 others filed a similar writ petition being W.P.No.13441 of 2004 and sought for a writ of mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 7.7.2004 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of A.P. canceling his earlier orders dated 28.6.1999, 1.4.2000, 25.5.2000 and 25.5.2000 respectively, and this Court by an order dated 9.7.2008 disposed of the writ petition setting aside the impugned order therein to the extent of canceling the releasing order in reference No.NA2/113/2000 dated 25.5.2000 and revived the said orders with a modification that the property therein, which was released by the impugned order, stands released in favour of all the legal heirs of late Nawab Ghalib Jung Laeequd-Dowla-Bahadur and making it clear that the inter se disputes among the legal heirs are left to be settled among themselves before an appropriate forum. With reference to the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prayer sought for in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in the writ petition No.13441 of 2004. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. To put in nutshell, the facts of the case are that late Nawab Ghalib Jung Laeequd-Dowla-Bahadur was the owner of the properties in question. The said properties were kept under the custody and supervision of the Court of Wards by Gazette No.2290, dated 1.5.1950 by the Firman of the H.E.H. The Nizam. Admittedly, the petitioners are some of the legal heirs of late Nawab Ghalib Jung Laeequd-Dowla-Bahadur. Therefore, the petitioners herein along with other legal heirs of late Nawab Ghalib Jung Laeequd-Dowla-Bahadur have got substantial rights over the properties in question. The 2nd respondent herein claiming to be the G.P.A. holder of the petitioners and other legal heirs of late Nawab Ghalib Jung Laeequd-Dowla-Bahadur has approached the 1st respondent by making applications under the provisions of Section 53 of the Act requesting for release of the properties in question in his favour. The 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings releasing the properties in question in favour of the 2nd respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has no right over the properties in question and the petitioners never executed any G.P.A. in his favour and it is submitted that under Section 53 of the Act, one of the grounds on which the property kept in the possession of the Court of Wards, is released, is attainment of majority of the ward and that mere release of the property from the custody of the Court of Wards in favour of any particular person, does not vest exclusive right in such person or persons to enjoy the property and that irrespective of the person in whose name the property is released, all the legal heirs claiming right over the property are entitled to their respective shares therein. Therefore, he submitted that since the petitioners never executed any G.P.A. in favour of 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent is not justified in issuing the impugned proceedings by releasing the properties in favour of 2nd respondent and the same is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and on the other hand, he contends that by the very same impugned order, the petitioners are entitled for releasing of the properties mentioned therein in their favour as per their respective shares along with other legal heirs. He further submits that the issue of entitlement of the rights of the legal heirs over the properties in question, has already been adjudicated by this Court in the writ petition referred to above, wherein the 2nd respondent herein is the 3rd respondent, who was declared to have no right over the properties in question and further it is held that all the legal heirs of late Nawab Ghalib Jung Laeequd-Dowla-Bahadur are entitled for their respective shares as per law. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the earlier occasion had appeared and submitted that in fact, the relief sought for in the present writ petition is covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.13441 of 2004, but he contended that the petitioners have executed the G.P.A. in favour of the 2nd respondent and contending the same, he sought to file certain documents, which are not part and parcel of the records in the writ petition. However, he contended that the relief sought for by the petitioners herein is covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.13441 of 2004 and they are entitled for the property according to their respective shares. That being so, the legal heir-ship of the petitioners in the writ petition with reference to late Nawab Ghalib Jung Laeequd-Dowla-Bahadur and their right over the properties in question is not in dispute. For better appreciation, the operative portion of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.13441 of 2004 is extracted hereunder: “Since the respondent No.2 has no objection for releasing the property in the name of all the 26 legal heirs, her mother having died, and to meet the ends of justice, I dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 07.07.2004 to the extent of it canceling release order in reference No.NA2/113/2000 dated 25.05.2000, and the said release order stands revived with the modification that Bungalow No.109 (New No.1-7-252 to 254), situated at Oxford Street, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad originally belonging to late Nawab Ghalib Jung Laeequd-Dowla-Bahadur stands released in favour of all his 26 legal heirs. It is made clear that the inter se disputes among the legal heirs are left to be settled among themselves before an appropriate forum.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition referred to supra, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: ‘The impugned orders issued by 1st respondent to the extent of releasing the properties mentioned thereunder in favour of the 2nd respondent is hereby modified and the 1st respondent is directed to release the properties mentioned therein in favour of all the legal heirs of late Nawab Ghalib Jung Laeequd-Dowla-Bahadur including the petitioners herein. It is made clear that the inter se disputes among the legal heirs are left to be settled among themselves before an appropriate forum.’ With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd respondent under the guise of the alleged G.P.A. had entered into certain transactions in respect of certain properties and those transactions are not binging on the petitioners and other legal heirs of late Nawab Ghalib Jung Laeequd-Dowla-Bahadur and he submits that any such disputes with regard to the properties that are existing as on today, be left open to the petitioners to fight out in accordance with law. Having regard to the said submissions, it is made clear that it is open for the petitioners to fight out with regard to any dispute in respect of the very properties about which the transactions alleged to have been taken place through the 2nd respondent, in accordance with law. _______________ G.CHANDRAIAH. J February 26, 2009 Tsr