A writ petition is not maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, unless the case falls within one of the exceptional cases where the High Court can entertain a writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

JUDGMENT

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed for writ of mandamus declaring action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings dated 25.03.2021 in MC/1134012660 and MC/1134012661 for mutation of the name relating to the houses bearing D.Nos.1697 and 1646 of Palakonda Nagarpanchayat, Srikakulam District, in favour of the 4th respondent without considering the objections of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the rules framed under the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. The petitioner also challenges the notice dated 19.04.2021 issued under Section 231 of the A.P. Municipalities Act to the 4th respondent directing to remove the ground floor tiled house and prayed to set aside the proceedings dated 25.03.2021 in MC/1134012660 and MC/1134012661 and also the notice dated 19.04.2021.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent - Nagarpanchayat.

3. As per the case pleaded by the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of the houses bearing D.Nos.1646 and 1697 which is in Palakonda Nagarpanchayat of Srikakulam District. He states that he has inherited the said property through his father as originally the said two houses are in the name of his father G. Sanyasi Rao and registered in his name in the records of the Nagarpanchayat. His father died in the month of November, 2015 and after his demise, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said two houses. The petitioner has been now paying taxes relating to the said two houses.

4. According to the petitioner, his paternal grandfather G. Raja Rao originally purchased the said two houses in the year 1975 in the name of the 4th respondent. After the death of his grandfather G. Raja Rao, all his sons and wife got the family property orally partitioned. However, the two houses in question, which was not subject matter of the said partition, was settled in favour of the father of the petitioner as per the advice of his grandmother and an unregistered settlement deed was executed to that effect by his grandmother and her three sons and as such his father got the said property by way of the said settlement. Thereafter the petitioner became owner of the house after the demise of his father.

5. While so, the 2nd respondent - Commissioner issued notice dated 19.03.2021 stating that the 4th respondent filed objections on 18.03.2021 for change of name in respect of the said two houses and directed the petitioner to appear before him within three days. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before him and submitted his documents in proof of his ownership over the said property. However, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned orders dated 25.03.2021 effecting transfer of the said property in the name of the 4th respondent on the basis of a registered document dated 01.03.2021, which do not relate to the said two houses. The petitioner states that thereafter, the 2nd respondent, by invoking Section 93 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 read with Rule 8(2) of the Taxation and Finance Rules, on the request of the 4th respondent, effected transfer of title in respect of the said property instead of directing the 4th respondent to approach civil Court for establishing his right. It is stated that the 2nd respondent also issued notice dated 19.04.2021 to 4th respondent to demolish the two houses stating that they are in dilapidated condition. Thus, two proceedings dated 25.03.2021 relating mutation of name and the proceedings dated 19.04.2021 issued to demolish the house are questioned in this Writ Petition.

6. The petitioner questions the impugned proceedings dated 25.03.2021 relating mutation of name mainly on the ground that Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Alteration of ownership of property in Assessment Book) Rules, 1966 and G.O.Ms.No.1059, Municipal Ad