IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13441 of 2004 Between: 1 Moinuddin Ghalib S/o Late Nasiruddin Ghalib R/o Masab Tank, Hyderabad 2 Shameem Jahan Ara Begum daughter of Late Hamiduddin ghalib R/o King Koti, Hyderabad 3 Naseem Jahan Area Begum D/o Hamiduddin Ghalib, R/o Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. A.P. 4 Khazi Moinuddin Khan s/o Late Shamsunnisa Begum R/o Pooplal Bazar, Hyderabad 5 Khazi raheemuddin Khan, S/o Nizamuddin Khan R/o 1-5-29/44, Mahboobnagar Colony, Kishanbagh, Hyderabad 6 Praveen Begum D/o Late Shamsunnisa Begum R/o Phool Bagh, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad, A.P., 7 Nasreen Begum D/o Late Shamsunnisa Begum W/o Mohd. Salam R/o Salala, Barkas, Hyderabad A.P., 8 Rao of Begum D/o Late Shamsunnisa Begum R/o Aga Dawood Dargah, Agapura, Hyderabad, A.P., 9 Suraiya Begum Daughter of Late Shamsunnisa Begum R/o Vattapally, Hyderabad, A.P. 10 Afsarunnisa Begum W/o Late Aliuddin Ghalib, R/o Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad A.P., 11 Gafoorunnisa Begum @ Sameena D/o Late Aliddin Ghalib, W/o Md. Mahmood, R/o Chatta bazar, Hyderabad, A.P., .... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Governement of A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad 2 Dr. Safinaz Fathima D/o Late hameeduddin Ghalib, R/o 22-2-697/1, Darulshifa, Hyderabad 3 Najeebuddin Ghalib S/o late Shamsuddin Ghalib R/0 19-2-23, Maqbara Ghalib Jung, Misri Gunj, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR B.ADINARAYANA RAO Counsel for respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.2:MR MIRZA SAFIULLA BAIG Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR T.KUMAR BABU FOR MR.A.SHIREESH The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 07-07-2004 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he cancelled his earlier orders dated 28-06-1999, 01-04-2000, 25-05- 2000 and 25-05-2000 respectively. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: Nawab Ghalib Jung Laeequd-Dowla-Bahadur was the owner of the properties in question. The said properties were kept in the custody of Court of Wards by Gazette No.2290 dated 01-05-1950, by the Firman of the H.E.H. The Nizam. The petitioners, who admittedly are some of the legal heirs of late Nawab Ghalib Jung Laeequd-Dowla- Bahadur approached respondent No.1, through their general power of attorney holder - respondent No.3, for release of the said properties under Section 53 of the Hyderabad Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli (for short ‘the Act’). By order dated 25-05-2000 passed in reference No.NA2/113/2000, respondent No.1, after verification of the relevant documents, released the property in question, namely; Bungalow No.109 (New No.1-7-252 to 254) situated at Oxford Street, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad in favour of Najeebuddin Ghalib i.e., respondent No.3, described as general power of attorney holder of 27 legal heirs of Ghalib Jung from the superintendence of Court of Wards. This order was assailed by respondent No.2 and her mother Mahmood Begum in W.P. No.22123 of 2000 on the sole ground that the said order of respondent No.1 releasing the property in favour of respondent No.3 was not sustainable, because respondent No.3 forged the signatures of the petitioner therein and her mother. This Court allowed the said writ petition on 24-11-2003 by setting aside letter dated 31-10-2000, whereby respondent No.1 refused to set aside order dated 25-05-2000, and directed respondent No.1 to reconsider the various orders passed by him releasing several items of properties in favour of respondent No.3 after issuing notice to respondent No.3. Purporting to reconsider the earlier release orders, including order passed in reference No.NA2/113/2000 dated 25-05- 2000, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order, whereby he cancelled four release orders including the above mentioned order dated 25-05-2000 on the sole ground that respondent No.2 denied execution of general power of attorney in favour of respondent No.3 in whose favour alone the properties were released. At the hearing, Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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. He submitted that the impugned order of cancellation of the earlier release order on the sole ground that respondent No.2 and her mother have not executed the power of attorney in favour of respondent No.3 causes manifest injustice not only to the petitioners, but also to the other legal heirs including respondent No.2. He submitted that even if respondent No.2 and her mother have not consented for execution of general power of attorney, the order of respondent No.1 could be modified by declaring that the property is released in favour of all the legal heirs including respondent No.2 (mother of respondent No.2 is since deceased). Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig, learned counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that the only objection of his client is against release of property in favour of respondent No.3, general power of attorney holder, and that if the order of respondent No.1 is modified as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 shall not have any objection. Sri T.Kumar Babu, learned counsel representing Sri A.Shireesh, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submitted that he has no specific instructions to make submissions on behalf of respondent No.3. Before considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is required to be observed that though by the impugned order as many as 4 release orders were cancelled, the petitioners filed only a copy of release order dated 25-05-2000 pertaining to Bungalow No.109 (New No.1-7-252 to 254), situated at Oxford Street, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. Even the pleadings of the petitioners suggest that they are interested in the said building only. Hence, the consideration in this writ petition shall be confined to the extent of release order passed in reference No. NA2/113/2000 dated 25-05-2000 relating to the above mentioned bungalow. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Considering the fact that the objection of respondent No.2 was only with regard to release of the properties in the name of general power of attorney holder and the further fact that she is in principle agreeable for release of the properties in favour of all the legal heirs collectively, I find the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that in the interest of justice, order dated 25-05-2000 passed in reference No. NA2/113/2000 could be modified, reasonable. Since 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 order dated 07-07-2004 to the extent of it cancelling 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. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th July, 2008 vrn