MAHABOOB MASTANA BEGUM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The admitted facts in this case are, Smt. Azizumunnisa Begum, w/o. Mohd. Shabuddin i.e., mother of petitioner and the unofficial Respondents 4 to 12 (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was granted 99 years lease in respect of 230 coconut trees and 3 tamarind trees, situated on the Mulaparru-Achanta and - Deva Road, way back on 4-10-1955 by the third respondent-Zilla Parishad. Subsequent to the death of the deceased on 23-2-1999, in pursuance of the application of the petitioner that she became entitled to the lease granted to her mother i.e., the deceased as per the registered Will executed by the deceased, third respondent even without issuing notice to the other heirs of the deceased i.e., unofficial Respondents 4 to 12, passed orders transferring the lease in the name of the petitioner on 9-4-2002. After coming to know that fact, Respondents 4 to 12 made an application on 5-12-2002, objecting to the transfer of lease without notice to them to the petitioner, and made a request to transfer the lease to all the heirs of the deceased. Therefore, by the proceedings in Rc.No.02-8257/95, dated 9-4-2002, third respondent cancelled the transfer of lease in favour of the petitioner, and observed that all the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to equal share in the rights of the deceased and communicated that order to the petitioner, through his proceedings in Rc.No.02/8275/96 Z.P., dated 21-1-2005, with a direction to handover the trees. That order is questioned in this writ petition.

(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as Respondents 2 and 3 did not afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, on the petition submitted by Respondents 4 to 12 the order impugned is liable to be set aside, more so because, some of the brothers and sisters of the petitioner who filed W.P. No.3199 of 2003 questioning the transfer of lease in favour of the petitioner, had withdrawn that petition resulting in its dismissal on 29-9-2004.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 is that since the deceased was a Muslim who has no absolute right to execute a Will, before transferring the lease held by the deceased in favour of the petitioner, third respondent ought to have issued notice to Respondents 4 to 12 for their comments on the Will said to have been executed by the deceased. It is his contention that since transfer of the lease in favour of the petitioner, without notice to Respondents 4 to 12, is invalid and irregular and since, setting aside of the order impugned results in revival of an invalid and irregular order petitioner is not entitled to any relief, and relied on M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 and Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Alikhan, (2000) 7 SCC 529.