JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri K. Koutilya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt V. Seshakumari, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

“........it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Proceedings Roc No. 5454/2017/A6 dated 30.12.2021 from the file of 2nd Respondent and after perusing the same quash the impugned Proceedings dated 30.12.2021 by declaring it as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, malafide and contrary to law and consequently direct 2nd Respondent to cancel the Mutation Order issued vide Proceedings No MC/1012004612 dated 08.08.2017 and restore my name in the relevant records and with all other consequential benefits and pass orders.”

3. Sri K. Koutilya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is widow of late B. Madan Mohan Reddy and the 3rd respondent is the widow of late B. Giris Babu Reddy. Late Sri B. Madan Mohan Reddy and late Sri B. Giris Babu Reddy were the real brothers. Sri B. Madan Mohan Reddy was the absolute owner of the building bearing Door No. 20-2-268/A2 (Assessment No. 1012035118) situated at Koriagunta/Maruthi Nagar, Chittoor District in short the building, as per the ownership certificate dated 17.02.2004 issued by the Revenue Officer of the Municipal Corporation, Tirupati-2nd respondent and has been paying regularly the property tax. He died on 14.02.2007 leaving behind the petitioner and two minor children. Even after the death of Sri B. Madan Mohan Reddy, the 2nd respondent issued demand bill dated 06.06.2017 for the assessment year 2017-2018 and also the receipt dated 29.07.2017 in his name. The 3rd respondent filed an affidavit dated 29.07.2017 before the 2nd respondent wrongly stating therein that the said building was in her possession and enjoyment and as per the registered settlement deed Document No. 712806 dated 14.11.2006 i.e. the gift deed by B. Madan Mohan Reddy, in favour of her husband, late Sri B. Giris Babu Reddy, he was the absolute owner and requested to make mutation in her name, in place of Sri B. Madan Mohan Reddy, upon which, without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed the proceedings No. MC/1012004612 dated 08.08.2017 in favour of the 3rd respondent. He further submitted that Sri B. Madan Mohan Reddy had executed a registered gift deed No. 7128/2006 dated 14.11.2006 in favour of Sri B. Giris Babu Reddy, but after the death of Sri B. Giris Babu Reddy on 07.06.2010, Sri B. Madan Mohan Reddy vide registered deed of revocation No. 4646/2010 dated 07.09.2010 revoked/cancelled the gift deed dated 14.11.2006, however, this fact of cancellation of the gift deed was not brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent by the 3rd respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the 3rd respondent had filed O.S. No. 199 of 2015 against Sri B. Madan Mohan Reddy seeking partition of the building which was later on withdrawn by her on 11.09.2017 without seeking any permission to file any fresh suit, but, again she filed O.S. No. 458 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for permanent injunction on 22.10.2017, based on the order of mutation dated 08.08.2017 against the petitioner. In the suit an ad-interim injunction was refused. From the summons issued to the petitioner of the suit, she came to know about the mutation proceedings and the order dated 08.08.2017. The petitioner thereafter filed representation/objection dated 23.12.2017 and also filed Writ Petition No. 45043 of 2017 challenging the order dated 08.08.2017. In the writ petition, initially an interim order dated 24.04.2018 was passed directing the 3rd respondent not to create any third party interest in respect of the building pursuant to the order of