Y. V. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) W. P. No. 13355 of 2000 has been filed by Falzul Islam Orphanage and Dawood Jung Trust, which is a wakf institution, challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent-Chief Commissioner of Land Administration releasing the old Bungalow No. 109 situated in S. D. Road, Secunderabad in favour of the 3rd respondent-Najeebuddin Ghalib. ( 2 ) W. P. No. 17798 of 2000 is filed by the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of late Dawood Jung, questioning the very same proceedings of the 1st respondent releasing the old Bungalow No. 109 situated in S. D. Road, Secunderabad in favour of the 3rd respondent-Najeebu ddin Ghalib. ( 3 ) SINCE both the Writ Petitions are filed challenging the very same proceedings of the 1st respondent releasing the bungalow in favour of the 3rd respondent, both the writ petitions are heard together and a common order is being passed. ( 4 ) THE factual matrix leading to the filing of W. P. No. 17798 of 2000 is set out as hereunder :- The 1st petitioner is the younger daughter of late Nawab Dawood Ali Khan (Dawood Jung Bahadur) and petitioners 2 and 3 are the legal heirs of late Smt. Meherunnisa, the eldest daughter of late Dawood Ali Khan. The bungalow bearing No. 109, situated in S. D. Road of Secunderabad was in possession of the tenants. Part of the said property was under the occupation of Smt. Aarti Jauarkar who used to run a Nursing Home under the name and style of "maruthi Nursing Home" and the other part was under the occupation of certain individuals who had garages. The petitioners father purchased the said property on 18-12-1936 in a court auction held in pursuance of the preliminary decree dated 31-8-1936 passed in O. S. No. 52 of 1934 on the file of the District Judge, Secunderabad. Subsequently a registered sale deed was also executed on 1-1-1937 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Secunderbad. The petitioners further submit that they were surprised to know that the house property is suddenly taken possession by a third party, Najeebuddin Ghalib, the 3rd respondent herein, claiming to be the legal heir of Ghalib-ul-Mulk. The petitioners , after enquiry, came to know that the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, the 1st respondent herein, passed the impugned order in his proceedings in C. C. L. A. S. Ref. The petitioners , after enquiry, came to know that the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, the 1st respondent herein, passed the impugned order in his proceedings in C. C. L. A. S. Ref. NA2/113/2000 dated 25-5-2000 releasing the said house property in favour of the 3rd respondent and others who, in fact, have absolutely no locus standi to claim the said property. Hence the present writ petition. ( 5 ) SIMILARLY, as already stated above, a charitable institution, registered as a Wakf Institution, filed W. P. No. 13355 of 2000 with the following averments :- The petitioner in this Writ Petition is the absolute owner of the bungalow No. 109 (New No. 1-7-252 to 254 situated in S. D. Road of Secunderbad, admeasuring about 2300 square yards which consists of a building and front open land to the extent of about 600 Square Yards. The old building was leased out by the petitioner but the open land is in the exclusive possession of the petitioner. The said property was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 27-10-1952 by the trustees of the petitioner-Institution. Hence the petitioner is the rightful owner of the said property. The Petitioner has been paying property tax and other taxes to the statutory authorities. The petitioner has also filed an eviction suit in O. W. No. 3 of 1999 on the file of the A. P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad for evicting the tenant from the demised premises and the said suit is pending. The Wakf Tribunal passed an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the possession of the petitioner insofar as the open space of 600 square yards is concerned. The said suit is pending and the order of injunction is subsisting. Thus the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of all that property. Since the petitioner is a Wakf Institution, it has filed the said suit along with A. P. State Wakf Board as a co-plaintiff. The said suit is pending and the order of injunction is subsisting. Thus the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of all that property. Since the petitioner is a Wakf Institution, it has filed the said suit along with A. P. State Wakf Board as a co-plaintiff. On 3-7-2000 the 2nd respondent along with police force came to the said property and the petitioner and its tenants were informed that the 1st respondent has passed an order in Proceedings No. NA2/113/2000 dated 25-5-2000 purporting to release the old building No. 109 situated in S. D. Road, Secunderabad in favour of the 3rd respondent and others and hence he is conducting panchanama recording delivery of possession of the said property to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was taken by surprise by the manner in which the 2nd respondent has trespassed into the property along with police force. The petitioner has no idea about the orders said to have been passed by the 1st respondent releasing the property in favour of the 3rd respondent purporting to exercise his authority under S. 53 of the A. P. (Andhra Pradesh) Court of Wards Act, 1902. ( 6 ) A counter affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent resisting the writ petitions. It is the case of the 3rd respondent that late Nawab Ghalib Jung was the owner of the estate and several moveable and immoveable properties. He died in the year 1904 leaving behind a minor son and a widow (Parda nasheen lady ). The Nizam Government and court of Ward took over the entire estate and all the properties of late Ghalib Jung for administration and supervision by order of Fireman. It is further contended that the legal representatives of late Nawab Ghalib Jung pursued with the authorities for releasing of the properties from the custody of Court of Wards. The L. Rs have also filed a suit O. S. No. 469 of 1983 for the release of the properties. It is further contended that the legal representatives of late Nawab Ghalib Jung pursued with the authorities for releasing of the properties from the custody of Court of Wards. The L. Rs have also filed a suit O. S. No. 469 of 1983 for the release of the properties. The said was dismissed by the Civil Court on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the specific remedy provided under the A. P. (Telangana Area) Court of Wards Act, 1350 F. Hence they filed an application before the authorities of the Court of Wards, i. e. , respondent No. 1 herein, for release of the bungalow No. 109, Oxford Street, S. D. Road, Secunderabad and in support of their claim they have filed several documents before the 1st respondent. Basing on the said documents, the 1st respondent has released the property in his favour. ( 7 ) TAKING into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties, the question that falls for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the order passed by the 1st respondent is in conformity with the established legal principles and principles of natural justice. ( 8 ) IN the W. P. No. 17798 of 2000 the L. Rs. of late Nawab Dawood Jung Bahadur has placed voluminous evidence and the Court proceedings for the purpose of establishing their title to the property. It is their contention that the property was purchased in a court held in 1936 and subsequently a registered sale deed was also executed in the years 1937. Likewise, in W. P. No. 13355 of 2000 the petitioner, which is a Wakf Trust, claims title by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 27-10-1952 in favour of the Trust. It is also on record that the Trust has filed a suit in O. S. No. 3 of 1999 on the file of the A. P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad for eviction of its tenant from the demised premises and they have also filed an injunction petition and the Wakf Tribunal has passed an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the Wakf Trust insofar as the open space of 600 square yards is concerned. From the entire record it is crystal clear that the rights of the parties are involved in the matter. From the entire record it is crystal clear that the rights of the parties are involved in the matter. ( 9 ) SRI Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that there is over whelming evidence for establishing the rights of the petitioners and the 1st respondent without giving any opportunity to the affected parties, has released the property in favour of the 3rd respondent. ( 10 ) IT would appear from the impugned order that the a petition was filed on 4/03/2000 by the 3rd respondent claiming to be the G. P. A. Holder of the L. Rs. of late Ghalib Jung and the said petition was disposed of by the 1st respondent in a lightening speed on 25/05/2000 without conducting any enquiry over the property. Admittedly the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the property and they have been exercising their control over the property in question. Suppressing all these facts,the 3rd respondent has approached the 1st respondent seeking to release the property in his favour from the Court of Wards. The 1st respondent ought to have issued a public notice calling for objections and an enquiry ought to have been conducted as to who are in actual possession. The affected parties ought to have been given a notice before passing the impugned order. ( 11 ) SRI K. Ramakrishna Reddy the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has contended that the legal representatives of late Ghalib Jung have rightly approached the Commissioner of Land Administration under the Court of Wards Act and the 1st respondent has rightly exercised jurisdiction. He sought to support the order of the 1st respondent as legal and valid. ( 12 ) ON going through the entire record I find that the 3rd respondent has filed O. S. No. 469 of 1983 and the same was dismissed on 8-6-1994 and an appeal in C. C. C. A. No. 59 of 1995 has been filed against the order of dismissal of the suit O. S. No. 469 of 1983 and the same is said to be pending. It is also on record that the petitioners in W. P. No. 13355 of 2000 have also filed an eviction suit in O. S. No. 3 of 1999 on the file of the A. P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad and they have also obtained an order of temporary injunction in their favour. It is also on record that the petitioners in W. P. No. 13355 of 2000 have also filed an eviction suit in O. S. No. 3 of 1999 on the file of the A. P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad and they have also obtained an order of temporary injunction in their favour. Thus, from the record it is crystal clear that the affected parties have not been given any notice or opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. The principle of audi alteram partem which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard is part of the natural justice. Any action of the State and its other authorities must answer the test reasonableness and it must be just and fair and should not be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Natural justice is nothing but fair play in action. Every State action must not only be transparent but it should be free from bias and malice. The 1st respondent is discharging the duties of a statutory authority under A. P. (Telangana Area) Court of Wards Act. It is mandatory on his part while discharging his duties with the trappings of judiciary to have given notice to the writ petitioners before passing the impugned order. This court while discharging duties under Article 226 of the Constitution does not wish to go into the question of title between the parties. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny and judicial review and is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for a de nova enquiry after giving notice to the affected parties vis-a-vis the writ petitioners and the 3rd respondent. It is open to the writ petitioners and the 3rd respondent to establish their respective to the property in question. Till such time there shall be an order of status quo and the 1st respondent shall complete this exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 13 ) BOTH the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. ( 14 ) THAT Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. ( 15 ) WITNESS the Honourable Mr. ( 13 ) BOTH the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. ( 14 ) THAT Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. ( 15 ) WITNESS the Honourable Mr. N. Y. Hanumanthappa, the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, at Hydrabad, this the Friday, the first day of December in the year Two thousand. Petition allowed.