THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.781 OF 2010 09-11-2010 BETWEEN; Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and another ...Appellants vs. Khaja Zahuruddin and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.781 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) This appeal by the Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Hom Affairs and the custodian of Enemy Property is against the judgment date 29-03-2010 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents setting asid the order dated 15-09-2009 passed by the 1st respondent insofar as th order imposes a condition that the writ petitioners should produce succession certificate for release of the property and has directed th appellants herein to implement the rest of the order dated 15-09-200 without insisting on production of a succession certificate or legal he certificate by the writ petitioners, within a period of three(3) months from th date of receipt of a copy of the order. The respondents claiming to be the sons of Smt Jilani Begum an owners of the property of an extent of Ac.251.06 guntas in Sy.Nos.20 an 28 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distric sought release of the lands and possession thereof. Earlier i proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling o Agricultural Holdings) Act,1973 ( for short “the Act”) the Land Reform Tribunal passed a common order dated 04-01-1978 accepting th petitioners as the major sons of Smt Jilani Begum and declaring that th land owners along with three sons are entitled for 4 Standard Holdings (fo short “SH”) against 9.8135 SH and declaring 5.3185 SH as excess whic was surrendered to the Government under the provisions of the Act. Th rest of the property of Smt Jilani Begum however was assumed by th custodian of enemy property under the provisions of the Enemy Propert Act,1968 ( Act 34 of 1968) treating the same as an enemy property on th ground that Smt Jilani Begum had initially left for Pakistan though late settled in United States of America. The writ petitioners and Smt Jilani Begum filed W.P.No.23835 of 199 assailing the decision. During the pendency of the said writ petition, th appellants herein passed an order dated 10-01-2006 under Section 8 o the Enemy Property Act, 1968. This order was questioned in anothe W.P.No.8161 of 2006. Both the writ petitions, 23835 of 1999 and 8161 o 2006 were disposed of by a common order dated 11-11-2006 wherein th third respondent therein was directed to consider the petitioners representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of thre months. Whereupon the 2nd appellant herein by the order dated 15 07-2008 informed the writ petitioners that the property in question would b restored to the legal heirs of Smt.Jilani Begum on submission o succession certificate and called upon the respondents herein to furnis succession certificate. A further order was passed by the first appellan herein on 15-09-2009 reiterating the requirement of furnishing succession certificate. In allowing the writ petition, the learned single judge has analysed th provisions of the Indian Succession Act,1925 in particular Section 37 thereof and held that immovable property which had been released by th appellants herein in favour of the legal representatives of Smt Jilan Begum does not fall within the expression “security” under the provision of Indian Succession Act,1925 necessitating or warranting issuance of succession certificate and therefore the appellants herein erred in insistin upon production of a succession certificate by the writ petitioners who ar declared to be the sons of Smt Jilani Begum, in the proceedings under th provisions of the Act. The learned single judge has categorically held tha the succession certificate need not be obtained in respect of th immovable property and such an insistence by the appellants herein wa without any basis in law and contrary to the specific statutory provisions o the Succession Act,1925. We find no infirmity either in the analysis of the appropriate lega provision or in the conclusion of the learned single judge, warrantin appellate interference. There are no merits. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. N order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 9th NOVEMBER 2010. TSNR