ORDER

Heard Mrs.M.Suguna, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Anand Surya, learned counsel representing Sri Kalava Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 5 and Sri V.Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for 6th respondent.

2. a) Petitioner and 6th respondent are natural brothers and their father executed a gift settlement deed bearing document No.521 of 2001 dated 08.02.2001 in favour of petitioner and 6th respondent in respect of property bearing D.No.19-9-22/G at Kennedy Nagar, Tirupati. The then Commissioner, Tirupati Municpal Corporation mutated the names of the petitioner and 6th respondent in the municipal records. Later, the petitioner and 6th respondent constructed building and got the same regularized vide proceedings No.BPS/TIR/MO/19/6436215 dated 26.11.2016.

b) Since the name of 6th respondent was not shown in the municipal records, it seems, 6th respondent made an application to the Commissioner to mutate his name. The Commissioner of 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.MC/1012186534 dated 27.07.2023 mutated the name of 6th respondent also. Challenging the same, the above writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that before incorporating the name of 6th respondent, no notice was issued to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for 6th respondent would submit that the name of 6th respondent has been continued in municipal records, however, since it was omitted by the authorities, the 6th respondent made an application by annexing registered document and the authority rectified the entry.

5. Learned standing counsel for Corporation would submit that at the time of introduction of ERP Online portal, the name of 6th respondent was omitted and subsequently, he made a representation dated 06.02.2022 and the authority followed the procedure and incorporated the name of 6th respondent.

6. The point for consideration is:

Whether non issuance of notice before mutating the name of 6th respondent is contrary to the procedure? and, if so, the endorsement impugned is liable to be set aside?

7. As seen from the pleadings and material available on record, there is no dispute regarding execution of gift settlement deed bearing document No.521 dated 08.02.2001 by father of petitioner and 6th respondent. In fact, as seen from the proceedings filed along with counter affidavit of 6th respondent at Page No.11, the names of petitioner and 6th respondent were mutated against the property. Even in the building penalization proceedings, the name of petitioner and 6th respondent were mentioned. Thus, name of the 6th respondent also existed along with the name of the petitioner in municipal records.

8. In the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondent, it was pointed out that at the time of introduction of ERP Online portal, the name of 6th respondent was omitted. Thus, the omission of the name of 6th respondent is accidental at the end of officials. It seems, having noticed 6th respondent made a representation dated 06-2-2022 and the mistake committed by the authorities was rectified. Thus, the omission of name of 6th respondent is only accidental.

9. If any person is aggrieved by the mutation order passed by the Commissioner, an appeal lies to the Government under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Alteration of Ownership of Property in Assessment Books)

Rules, 1966.

10. Case at hand, as discussed supra, the names of petitioner and 6th respondent were initially mutated and they were continued for some time. Since the omission of name of 6th respondent is only accidental, the 2nd respondent rectified the same by proceedings dated 27.07.2023. In fact, mutation of name of any person in records, per se, will not confer any title. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case non issuance of notice to the petitioner does not make the proceedings invalid.

11. In view of the discussion supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no merits in this writ petition and the same is liabl