1. WAOAR AHMED SETH, J. Mrs. Naheed Kamal Azfar petitioner seeks the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court praying for :- " that on acceptance of this writ petition to declare the impugned letter of the respondent No.2 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect and direct the respondents to transfer the bungalow No.2, Khaira Gali, Abbottabad in favour of the petitioner" .
2. 2- Brief facts, as per contents of writ petition, are that initially bungalow No.2, previously numbered as bungalow NO.1, Khaira Gali, Abbottabad, was purchased by Muhammad Azfar CSP, SPK, then Secretary to the Government of Pakistan during the regime of Ayub Khan, who transferred the same in favour of his son Kamal Azfar and, who in turn gifted out the same in favour of his late son Omar Azfar. Omar Azfar died at New York USA in the year 2009 and, thus, the bungalow devolved upon his legal heirs, namely, Kamal uddin Azfar, Sara Fatima Azfar, Prof. Farid Azfar and Mursaleena Islam, which includes the petitioner (mother). It is averred in the petitioner that the remaining heirs of deceased executed no objection to the issuance of letter of administration in favour of petitioner. On 30.03.2013 the learned Senior Civil Judge granted the letter of administration and the same was amended on 13.07.2013. On 23.09.2013 revised letter of administration was issued in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 illegally allowed the construction of a four storeyed building to the adjoining plot by overlooking the property of the petitioner. One employee of respondent department, namely, Saeed approached for negotiation, which was refused and that the said person in collusion with some other person(s) is trying to obstruct the transfer of the said bungalow. In order to obstruct the transfer of the plot, respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 19.03.2014 asking the petitioner to get permission of the Court for the sale of the plot and also to submit the succession certificate. The husband of petitioner replied to the letter. The respondents did not contested the letter dated 22.03.2014 and husband of petitioner approached the Director General of respondent No.1 for transfer of plot in favour of petitioner but to no avail, hence, the instant petition.
3. 3- Arguments heard and record perused.
4. 4- The impugned letter dated 19.03.2014 requires the petitioner to do and to produce two things i.e.
(i) the succession certificate and (ii) permission to sell or transfer certificate. The demand of respondents does not seem to be legal under the law as (i) succession certificate is always against moveable properties whereas the matter involves to share / sale / transfer of immovable property.
5. S- Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925 deals with the succession certificate and is issued only for 'debts' & 'securities' defined in Section 380(2) of the Act ibid. 6- The Succession Certificate neither gives any general power of administration on the estate of the deceased nor establishes title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased. It only furnishes the grantee with authority to collect debts due to the deceased and allows the debtors to make payments to him with incurring loss. Thus, the object of the said certificate is to facilitate the collection of the debts, to regulate the administration of succession and to protect person, who deals with the alleged representatives, thus, we are constrained to hold that demand to produce the succession certificate from the petitioner in reference to the matter in issue is highly unreasonable and illegal.
6. 7- As far as the second demand of the respondents regarding production of permission to sale / transfer is concerned, in this respect the petitioner produced revised letter of administration, which makes the things clear and there is no need of further permission in this respect. Initially, vide order dated 30.03.2013 the petitioner was granted letter of administration, which was reviewed vide order dated 13.07.2013 by the competent court of law with the following words:- "In the circumstances the review petition is accepted and the portion that 'She will not transfer the said property in any manner without prior permission of the court' is hereby deleted from the letter of administration. However, this order is subject to submission of personal surety bond to the tune of Rs. Three Crores coupled with bank guarantee of the same amount. Previous letter of administration is hereby cancelled while fresh letter of administration be issued in favour of petitioner. This file be made part and parcel of main petition".
7. 8- The letter of administration is issued / granted under Section 220 of the Succession Act, 1926, which reads:- "S.220. Letters of administration entitles the Administrator to all rights belonging to the interstate as effectually as if the administration had been granted at the moment after his death".
8. 9- As such, all rights belonging to the interstate shall vest in the holder of letters of administration, the moments letter is granted by the competent court of law under the relevant law and only in two conditions it could be limited firstly, when the same is annexed with 'will' under Section 249 of the Act ibid or secondly the court of competent jurisdiction in its discretion had granted letter of administration for the limited purpose under Section 253 of the Act ibid. In the instant case revised letter of administration is very much clear, which was neither challenged or reviewed and is still in filed, hence, the second demand is neither justified not legal.
9. 10- In view of the above legal and factual position, we allow this writ petition as prayed for. No order as to costs.