THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.1252 of 2014

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not adhering to his Memo vide ROC No.A6/32220/2011, dated 29.10.2011 and in cancelling the mutation of petitioner’s name in the revenue records vide ROC.No.A3/24565/2013, dated 22.08.2013, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Sri M.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pasham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Though, Sri M.T.Ghori, filed vakalat on behalf of 2^nd respondent, there is no representation on behalf of 2nd respondent.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of property bearing Municipal No.15-4-5, situated at Matwada, Warangal District, admeasuring 151.55 square yards (for short ‘subject property’), having purchased the same Smt.Kairunnisa Begum, vide registered sale deed No.7480/2010, dated 31.12.2010; that the petitioner submitted an application for mutation of his name in the municipal records and the same was considered and mutation was effected vide ROC.No.A6/2296/2011, dated 28.01.2011. While the things stood thus, respondent No.2 filed objection petition dated

05.07.2013 before the 1^st respondent stating that the vendor of the petitioner has expired prior to execution of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner; and that the petitioner is claiming his title through fraudulent document. Basing on the objection filed by 2^nd respondent, respondent No.1 issued impugned proceedings dated 22.08.2013 vide ROC.No.A3/24565/2013, advising both the parties to seek redressal from competent Civil Court since there is civil dispute, however ordered for restoration of name of the original owner Smt.Khairunnisa Begum. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed suit vide OS.No.817 of 2013 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal and also obtained injunction in IA.No.731/2013 vide order dated 16.08.2013. Learned Counsel would further submit that in similar issue, earlier, respondent No.1 vide Roc.No.A6/32220/2011, dated 29.10.2011, directed the parties therein to settle the ownership title of the subject property before the competent Civil Court. However, in the case of petitioner, although the 1^st respondent observed that the parties may seek redressal before the competent Court in view of the civil dispute, but, ordered for restoration of name of original owner Smt.Khairunnisa Begum, thus, respondent No.1 has taken two contradictory stands on the same issue, which is nothing but colourable exercise of power. He also submits that the 1st respondent having observed that suits filed by both the parties are pending, ought not to have restored the name of vendor of the petitioner i.e. Smt.Khairunnisa Begum, in the municipal records. He submits that against the common Judgment and Decree passed in OS.Nos.174/2014 and OS.No.817/2013, the petitioner herein filed appeal and the same is pending adjudication; and that the appeal is continuation of the suit, the claim of the petitioner has not been finally adjudicated. He further submitted that as on the date of passing impugned order the petitioner was in possession and owner on the strength registered sale deed, therefore the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for 1^st respondent would submit that the petitioner filed suit vide OS.No.817 of 2013 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal; that the 2^nd respondent along with others filed suit in OS.No.174 of 2014 to declare them as owners of the subject property and consequential permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with the subject property; and that the suits filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No.2