Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 455
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
A. RAJASHEKER, J.
Allala Ravinder Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, represented by its Director, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 29306 of 2014
Decided on : 21-07-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: T. Surya Satish, learned Senior Counsel.
For the Respondents: R1, Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, R2, V. Satyam Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel, R5 to R7, V. Ravinder Rao, Learned Counsel.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, Article 226 – Mutation of name in revenue records – Deletion of name – Represented by its Director, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others Present writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in deleting the name of the petitioner from the mutation records of the property District with the name of the 4th respondent without following due process of law and following the opinion issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the proceedings in respect of the said property issued by the 2nd respondent case of the petitioner is that he inherited the property to an extent of 668 square yards bearing of Municipality in Survey No.465 from his father, who originally acquired the same vide document under partition from joint family members towards his share and ever since then his father was holding valid title and possession of the schedule property. It is stated that the above said property was also claimed by the 4th respondent by forging and fabricating various documents and the 4th respondent also filed on the file of Principal Civil Judge seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioner with respect to above said property and after the orders passed in the said suit dismissing the same matter was carried by way of appeal before the II Additional District Judge the same was also dismissed –Held, When the registered owner objects for change of entries who claims transfer of ownership, shall produce the evidence of document showing the transaction regarding the genuineness of which the Commissioner shall satisfy himself before ordering the registry of the transfer of ownership. In this case, though the name of the 4th respondent is continued from the but basing on the application of the petitioner that too for assessing vacant land tax, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the place of the 4th respondent in the municipal records. Even according to the petitioner he requested for assessment of vacant land tax, but the property was straight away mutated in favour of the petitioner purely based on the legal opinion of the standing counsel without issuing any notice to the 4th respondent. Except the permanent lease deed bearing document which does not confer any right exclusively in favour of father of the petitioner, no other document has been filed to show the exclusive right of the petitioner over the subject property. More so, as per Rule 3 of the Rules, 1965, it is for the parties, who seek transfer of ownership, to produce documents in proof of ownership in their favour. Though is filed for injunction same has not attained finality as second appeal is pending against the same and in the counter of the respondent-Municipality, it is clearly stated that the mistake was subsequently rectified by issuance of proceedings – Writ petition is dismissed.
1. The present writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in deleting the name of the petitioner from the mutation records of the property bearing H.No.7-6-222/1 of Jagitial Town, Jagitial, Karimnagar District with the name of the 4th respondent without following due process of law and following the opinion issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the proceedings No.A1/1600/2012-13, dated 26-03-2013 in respect of the said property issued by the 2nd respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he inherited the property to an extent of 668 square yards bearing No.7-6-222/1 (corresponding Old H.No.6-5-6/2/2 & 6-5-6/2/3) of Jagitial Municipality in Survey No.465 from his father, who originally acquired the same vide document No.61/1951, dated 02-05-1951 under partition from joint family members towards his share and ever since then his father was holding valid title and possession of the schedule property. It is stated that the above said property was also claimed by the 4th respondent by forging and fabricating various documents and the 4th respondent also filed O.S.No.201 of 2005 on the file of Principal Civil Judge seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioner with respect to above said property and after the orders passed on 28-03-2011 in the said suit dismissing the same, the matter was carried by way of appeal before the II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar vide A.S.No.20 of 2011 and the same was also dismissed on 25-09-2012. While the matter stood thus, on an application made by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent for mutation of his name into the suit schedule property, a clarification was sought by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent and after obtaining clarification, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and accordingly cess was also collected from the petitioner and the name of the 4th respondent was deleted from the revenue records and the name of the petitioner was incorporated vide proceedings No.A1/1600/2012, dated 26-02-2013 and subsequently, collected municipal taxes and further provided ownership document vide proceedings No.A1/412/13, dated 05-03-2013 for the property bearing H.No.7-6-222/1 situated at Jagitial, Karimnagar District and further received Rs.1,00,800/- towards miscellaneous receipt. After due process the 2nd respondent issued mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioner and subsequently, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was replaced in the municipal records by inserting the name of the 4th respondent vide proceedings No.A1/1600/2012-13, dated 26-03-2013 on the basis of second note put up by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent, which is illegal and arbitrary. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The 2nd respondent filed its counter stating that the property in question bears municipal Nos.7-6-222/1, corresponds to old premises No.6-5-6/2/2 and 6-5-6/2/3 with more area and in the municipal records/ assessment registers, the new members were introduced during financial year 2002-2003 and in the municipal records/assessment registers, the property in question was recorded in the name of father of the 4th respondent (D. Raja Gopal Rao) ever since the year 1975-76 and the same was assessed for vacant land tax and the same was being paid by the father of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent filed an application dated 02-08-1988 seeking mutation of the said property in her favour and considering the same, transfer was effected in the assessment registered through proceedings No.840/D1/1989, dated 18-10-1989 and ever since the assessment registers contained the name of the 4th respondent and she was paying the vacant land tax. While the things stood thus, the petitioner filed an application on 04-12-2012 with a request to determine the vacant land tax payable to the said property
