Writ petitions cannot resolve title disputes; such issues must be addressed through appropriate legal suits, confirming procedural compliance in municipal inquiries.

ORDER:

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J.

The present writ petition has been filed, declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 22.01.2009, in proceedings No.MCR No.749, along with the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 18.10.2008 issued in proceedings No.A1/2414/2008, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to rules, without application of mind and also with a prejudiced mind to help the respondent Nos.3 to 5, and consequently sought a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to entertain any mutation proceedings in respect of the disputed house bearing H.No.2-1-170/2/3 along with open land comprising 546 square yards, situated at Aaravadi Veedi, Suryapet, Nalgonda in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5, and also to restore the entries of the petitioners, in place of their late father in the assessment registers of the 2nd respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners’ father Mohd. Moulana Saheb s/o. late Nabi Saheb, alleged to have purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.4½ guntas equivalent to 546 square yards in Sy.No.773, situated in Suryapet Town and Municipality, Nalgonda District, under a registered sale deed dated 23.11.1987, which was registered as document No.3661/1987 and it is also contended by the writ petitioners that the said property was purchased by their father, and that during the lifetime of their father, they have applied for municipal sanction permission for construction of house and the 1st respondent had granted permission vide proceedings No.D/25/91-92 dated 17.05.1991, for construction of a house and compound wall, and due to paucity of funds, only four rooms were constructed along with compound wall, and the total compound wall was not constructed around the total land, and they have been living in the said land. It is also contended that while so, their father expired on 16.04.1996, leaving behind the petitioners, their mother and also two sisters, and the said two sisters were married and have been living with their husbands, and that the petitioners have been in constant possession and enjoyment of the said house and along with the appurtenant land as on the date.

3. It is also contended that subsequent to the death of their father, both sisters and mother, who are also having equal share out of the said land, have executed registered Release Deed dated 16.10.2006, in their favor, which was registered as document No.4500/2006 and thus, the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the said property admeasuring 546 square yards along with the house thereupon, and it is further stated that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein, who are the brothers of their late father, having developed an evil eye to grab their house, and having managed the 2nd respondent, got the mutation proceedings bearing No.A1/2414/2006, dated 24.04.2006 in their favor bifurcating the house numbers as 2-1-170/2/3/A to C, though there are no structures other than four rooms constructed by their father, more so, the petitioners are residing in the same house. It is contended that, the mutation proceedings were obtained by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein with the active collusion of the respondent No.2 and questioning the said mutation proceedings in favor of respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein dated 24.04.2006, the petitioner's mother alleged to have filed W.P.No.24370 of 2006 before this Court, which was allowed by this Court on 29.11.2006 with the following observations:

“Taking into consideration the fact that neither the petitioner nor other legal heirs of Mohd. Moulana Saheb has been put on notice before effecting the mutation proceedings, the impugned mutation proceedings are her