The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.27934 of 2009 Dated 29th March, 2010 Between: Khaja Zahuruddin and 2 others. …Petitioners And 1.Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Enemy Property Section, Jaisalmer House, Mansingh Road, New Delhi – 100 001 and another …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Syam Sundar Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.S.Rajasekhar for Mr.Ponnam Ashok Goud, Asst.Solicitor General The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.12/06/2006-EP, Government of India / Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Home Affairs / Grih Mantrayala, Jaisalmer House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi, dated 15- 09-2009, of respondent No.1 to the extent it relates to requiring the petitioners to produce the Succession Certificate showing the petitioners as the legal heirs of Smt.Jilani Begum as a condition for releasing the property admeasuring Ac.251-06 guntas in Survey Nos.20 and 28 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Syam Sundar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S.Rajasekhar, learned Counsel representing Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. The following are the undisputed facts of the case: The petitioners claim to be the sons of late Jilani Begum. She was the owner of the abovementioned land. On the declaration made by the said Jilani Begum and the petitioners, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’), the Land Reforms Tribunal passed common order, dated 04-01-1978, accepting the petitioners as major sons of Smt.Jilani Begum and holding that the land owner along with her three sons is entitled for 4 Standard Holdings (for short ‘SH’) against 9.8135 SH. Accordingly, surplus land was declared as 5.3185 SHs and the same was surrendered to the Government as per the Act. However, the respondents have taken the land of the petitioners’ family treating the same as enemy property as Smt.Jilani Begum has initially left for Pakistan and later settled in United States of America. The petitioners along with their mother filed WP.No.23835 of 1999 questioning the said decision. When the said Writ Petition was pending before this Court, the respondents passed order, dated 10-01-2006, under Section 8 of the Enemy Property Act which was questioned in WP.No.8161 of 2006. This Court disposed of both the Writ Petitions by common order, dated 11-11-2006, wherein respondent No.3 therein was directed to consider the petitioners’ representations and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months. Respondent No.2 vide its Order, dated 15-07-2008, informed the petitioners that the property in question will be restored to the legal heirs of Smt.Jilani Begum on submission of Succession Certificate and accordingly, requested the petitioners to furnish such a certificate. On the representation made by the petitioners, a further order was passed by respondent No.1 on 15-09-2009 reiterating the same condition. The petitioners questioned the said order to the extent of imposition of the said condition. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 wherein the above facts have not been disputed. They have however sought to justify the impugned condition imposed in their proceedings by taking the stand that even in respect of immovable properties, Succession Certificates can be issued. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, at no stage, the status of the petitioners as the legal heirs of Smt.Jilani Begum has been disputed either by the respondents or by any other party. Admittedly, the earlier two Writ Petitions viz., W.P.Nos.23835 of 1999 and 8168 of 2006 were filed by the petitioners along with their mother Smt.Jilani Begum. The Land Reforms Tribunal recognised the petitioners as the sons of late Jilani Begum and accordingly, allotted 3 SH in their favour while determining the surplus land under the Act. These facts would unmistakably confirm the status of the petitioners as the legal heirs of late Smt.Jilani Begum. As regards the requirement of Succession Certificate, Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, provides for issuance of Succession Certificate only in respect of a debt or a security. This is not a case where the Succession Certificate is insisted upon in connection with any debt. The word ‘Security’ is defined in sub-section 2 of Section 370 of the said Act as under: ‘a) Any promissory note, debenture, stock or other security of the Central Government or of State Government. b) Any bond, debenture or annuity charged by Act of Parliament on the revenues of India. c) Any stock or debenture or share in a company or other institution. d) Any debenture or other security for money issued by or on behalf of any legal authority. e) Any other security which the State Government may by notification for the declaration before the Security for the purpose of this part.” Indubitably, the immovable property, which has been released by the respondents in favour of the legal heirs of Smt.Jilani Begum, does not fall in any one of the above clauses to attract the definition of the word ‘Security’. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that Succession Certificate can be obtained in respect of an immovable property is wholly without any legal basis and contrary to the specific statutory provision referred to above. The respondents have failed to show any other legal provision under which either Succession Certificate or Legal Heir Certificate is required to be obtained by the petitioners, more so in the absence of any dispute about their status, though several proceedings have taken place culminating in passing of order by the respondents directing release of the property in favour of the legal heirs of Smt.Jilani Begum. For all the abovementioned reasons, I am of the opinion that insistence on the condition stipulated in the impugned order relating to production of Succession Certificate for release of the property cannot be sustained in law and the same is, accordingly, set aside. Respondents are directed to implement the balance part of order, dated 15-09-2009, without insisting on production of Succession or Legal Heir Certificates by the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. _____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 29th March, 2010 lur