SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2075

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
K BHASKAR NAIDU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent


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 befor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top