ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri B. Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, Sri V. Venkata Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the record. 2. Notice taken out to respondent No.3 has been returned with postal endorsement, no such person and the petitioner did not take steps to serve the respondent through substitute mode. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he has purchased plot No.174 consisting of two parts of 150 square yards each under registered sale deed dated 04.01.2021 from its lawful owner along with ACC roof structure contained therein admeasuring 500 square yards; that though the petitioner’s vendor had obtained building permission from the erstwhile Gram panchayat earlier on 05.07.2018 for construction of building consisting of Ground + 2 upper floors, she did not undertake the construction therein; and that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent claiming the subject property had filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, vide O.S. No.268 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Malkajgiri; and that during the pendency of the above suit also filed another suit O.S. No.797 of 2021 seeking for an injunction against the petitioner and one Raji Reddy in respect of the aforesaid property and the said injunction suit has been dismissed on 30.04.2024 for non-prosecution.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent having filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, pending the aforesaid suit executed the sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent, vide document dated 23.09.2022 and that the 4th respondent on the basis of the sale deed in her favour had got the property mutated on to her name in the Municipal records maintained by the 2nd respondent authority.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that on noticing the aforesaid mutation got done by the 4th respondent, he has approached the respondent authorities and submitted representation dated 31.07.2024 seeking for cancellation of door number allotted the subject property in the name of the 4th respondent vide H. No.10-781/4 and property tax identification No.1227115461.

7. It is the further contention of the petitioner that inspite of the petitioner submitting the aforesaid representation, no action is taken by the 2nd respondent authority. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent submits that there are inter se civil disputes between the petitioner’s vendor and the 3rd respondent who sold the subject property to the 4th respondent.

9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that both the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent had purchased the subject property during the pendency of the civil proceedings between their vendors before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction and that the petitioner taking advantage of the sale deed executed in his favour is now seeking for cancellation of the door number allotted to the subject property by mutating the same in favour of the 4th respondent on the basis of the sale deed dated 23.09.2022.

10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the 3rd respondent while selling the aforesaid property in favour of the 4th respondent had mentioned the existence of the door number and the PTI number of the subject property which only goes to show that by the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the unofficial respondent No.4, the subject property has already been assigned with a door number also PTI number. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that it is only upon the 4th respondent purchasing the subject property, the same having been mutated in favour of the 4th respondent