JUDGMENT

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. - This writ appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order 28/9/2022 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P.No.1198 of 2022, quashing proceedings Roc.No.5454/2017/A6 dtd. 30/12/2021 and consequently issuing certain directions in paragraph 57 of the order.

2. The dispute between the parties pertains to ownership and mutation of name over building bearing Door No.20/2/268/A2 (Assessment No.1012035118) situated at Koriagunta/Maruthi Nagar, Chittoor District. Ownership certificate of the said building was issued in favour of Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy, who died on 14/2/2007, leaving behind the writ petitioner and two minor children. The

3. rd respondent/appellant filed a petition before the Tirupati Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred as "the Corporation") on 29/7/2017 claiming to be in possession and enjoyment of the building as per the registered settlement deed document No.712806 dtd. 14/11/2006, i.e. the gift deed by Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy in favour of her husband late Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy, who was none other than the own brother of Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy. On the basis of this gift deed, 3 rd respondent/appellant claimed absolute ownership and requested to mutate her name, upon which the 2nd respondent issued proceedings in her favour on 8/8/2017. 3. It appears, the writ petitioner claimed that after the death of Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy on 7/6/2010, the owner Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy vide registered deed of revocation dtd. 7/9/2010, revoked/cancelled the gift deed dtd. 14/11/2006; however, this fact of cancellation of gift deed was not brought to the notice of the Corporation.

4. It appears, the 3rd respondent/appellant filed O.S.No.199 of 2015 against Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy seeking partition of the building. However, the suit was withdrawn, but she again filed O.S.No.458 of 2017 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for permanent injunction based on the order of mutation dtd. 8/8/2017. The writ petitioner claimed to be aware of the mutation in the name of the 3rd respondent/appellant from the summons of the suit served upon her. The writ petitioner, thereafter, moved representation before the Corporation and filed W.P.No.45043 of 2017, in which initially an interim order was passed against the 3rd respondent/appellant. The writ petitioner preferred another writ petition, W.P.No.19220 of 2021 seeking direction to the Corporation to pass final orders on her representation. Both these writ petitions were disposed of by common order dtd. 22/2/2021 directing the Corporation to pass final orders after issuing notice to both the parties. The Corporation, thereafter, passed final order on 30/12/2021 directing mutation in favour of the 3rd respondent/appellant. It is this order which was called in question in the writ petition.

5. The 3rd respondent/appellant contended before the learned single Judge that Northern part of the building was purchased by her husband Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy and only Southern part of the building was purchased by Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy, which too after the execution of the gift deed by Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy on 14/11/2006, came in the ownership of Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy, who became owner of the entire property owned by Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy. It is specifically contended that registered gift deed dtd. 14/11/2006 could not be revoked or cancelled, vide document dtd. 7/9/2010, and that too, after the death of Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy on 7/6/2010.

6. One of the contentions of the writ petitioner is that the order dtd. 30/12/2021 of the Corporation cannot be sustained as it is based upon the gift deed dtd. 14/4/2006 executed by Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy in favour of Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy, which has already been cancelled by subsequent deed of cancellation dtd. 7/9/2010 and that unilateral cancellation of gift deed was perfectly legal. Then, it was argued by the writ petitioner that the Corporation has no jurisd