A.Venu Gopal & Anr. v. The Union of India & Anr.

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in mutating the names of legal heirs of late Arisam Kanthamma as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 2006 and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. I have heard Sri K.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.A.Habeeb, learned counsel representing Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel for Cantonment Board appearing for respondent No.2. This writ petition was originally filed by one A.Venu Gopal, who claimed to be the legal heir of late A.Kanthamma. After the original petitioner’s death, his legal representatives were brought on record. It is their pleaded case that late Smt.A.Kanthamma was the occupier of house bearing No.95/A in GLR survey No.481/247 admeasuring Acs.2.37 guntas located in the limits of Picket, Secunderabad.

The original petitioner has filed an application before respondent No.2 for mutation of the said property. As no decision on the said application has been taken, he has filed the present writ petition. On behalf of respondent No.2, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, its Chief Executive Officer filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is inter alia averred that the property in respect of which the petitioners are claiming mutation is a part of old grant house under the management of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, that in respect of old grant tenure, the Government retains its ownership and also a right of resumption of land and that in respect of the same property, two suits, namely, O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1997 were filed on the file of the Court of XIII Additional Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, and by judgment and decree dated 17.04.2009, it was held that the property is not free hold property and that the petitioners were not entitled to seek any relief.

It is further averred that according to the petitioners, late Smt.A.Kanthamma died intestate leaving behind one A.Chandra Sekhar and others as surviving legal heirs. As the subject property is old grant property and the Central Government remains its owner, the question of mutation of the name of the original petitioner as holder of occupancy rights of the property does not arise. In my opinion, several disputed questions of fact are involved in this case, namely, whether the property in respect of which relief is claimed by the petitioners is covered by the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2009 in O.S.Nos.125 and 126 of 1997, whether the property was in respect of old grant or free hold property and whether late Smt.A.Kanthamma was the real owner and if so, whether the petitioners succeeded to her estate. All these issues can only be conveniently decided in a properly constituted suit by the civil Court of competent jurisdiction.