ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chatla Madhu, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the entire property previously was joint family property, held in the name of Karta Sri G.Shanker Reddy, who is the father of the petitioner’s husband i.e Sri Shankar Reddy, who died on 17.02.1996 and the wife of Sri Shankar Reddy i.e. Smt G.Rajmani died on 16.12.2000. The petitioner’s husband – Sri G.Pandu Reddy @ G.Pandu Ranga Reddy acquired house property bearing Municipal No.2-9-102 admeasuring 224.36 sq. yards situated at Buttonguda, Macha Bolaram, Alwal Municipality, Medchal Taluq, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District towards his share from the ancestral property. The petitioner’s husband Pandu Ranga Reddy bequeathed the said property in petitioners favour under a Gift Deed bearing document No.318/1, dated 01.02.2011. After becoming the owner of the subject property, the petitioner approached the respondent herein on 03.06.2011 for mutation of the petitioner’s name in the municipal records by putting up proper application along with annexures as is required. On 28.06.2011, the respondent has issued notice calling upon the petitioner to submit the death certificate, family members’ certificate of Sri G.Shankar Reddy and also no objection affidavit of the family members of late G.Shankar Reddy. The petitioner has given reply to the said notice on 17.07.2011 stating that as all the other family members of late G.Shankar Reddy are residing separately, the petitioner is unable to submit the family member certificate and no objection affidavit of other members of the family, but however, the petitioner submitted death certificate of late G.Shankar Reddy. The case of the petitioner further is that in spite of specific application made by the petitioner on 03.06.2011, the respondent did not pass any order of refusal, but instead called upon the petitioner for the documents to be submitted are otherwise are not relevant for the mutation of the property and finally the petitioner received the impugned order vide No. A2/CSC/26052/2011-12, dated 06.03.2012 observing as follows:

“As such, in the absence of documents called for, the request of the petitioner for mutation of House No.2-9-102 in the name of the petitioner may not be considered. Hence, this is for information.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends as follows:

a) Though the petitioner made an application on 03.06.2011, the respondent did not pass any order of refusal, but called for the documents to be submitted which otherwise are not relevant for the mutation of the property.

b) The respondent did not adopt the procedure as mandated under Section 3 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Registry of the Transfer of Ownership of Properties in the Assessment Book) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘ the HMC Rules, 1965’).

c) It is not for the respondent corporation to decide the title of the property and under a registered Gift Deed, the title has already been passed on to the party concerned and any person, who is aggrieved by the said decision, should approach a proper Court of law, in this regard.

d) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record Memo dated 25.06.2013, with reference to the instructions issued by the Government relating to issuance of Family Members Certificate by the Tahsildar concerned and emphasized that as per the said memo dated 25.06.2013, the Mandal Revenue Officers are not competent to issue Legal Heir Certificate and only Courts of law are competent to issue legal heir/succession certificates and that the Mandal Revenue Officer can only issue Family Membership Certificate in respect of the Government employees and that too to receive Government dues, if any dues are payable to the Government servant, in case of death.

e) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment reported in Nand Kishwar Bux Roy v Gopal Bux Rai and others, AIR 194