THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No. 28404 of 2015

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking direction to 1^st respondent to act in accordance with law and to restrain the 1^st respondent from proceeding further pursuant to the letter vide Roc.No.A1/4034/2014-15, dated 23.07.2015, for deciding the ownership over the property bearing No.9-1-21, Contractors Basthi, Bellampally, Adilabad District, under the Alteration of Ownership of Property in the Assessment Book Rules, 1966.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel representing Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, Sri Putta Krishan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms.Sana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Ms.Sana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 represented that she has no instructions from respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that House No.9-1-21 (new), Contractor Basthi, Bellampally, Adilabad District (for short ‘subject property’) originally belong to father of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are his younger brothers; that petitioner’s father expired about 22 years back and after his death, respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their mother agreed to sell the subject property in favour of petitioner and accordingly respondent Nos.2 and 3 were paid an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- in three installments; that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have executed a sale deed on 04.03.1995 in favour of petitioner and delivered possession to the petitioner; and that since then the petitioner was residing in the said house; that the petitioner submitted an application to 1^st respondent for mutation of his name in the revenue records and in view of the consent given by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their mother, 1^st respondent has mutated petitioner’s name in the assessment records.

5. Learned Counsel further submitted that while the things stood thus, after a lapse of 20 years, the respondent No.2 filed representation dated 21.01.2015 before the 1st respondent claiming ownership over the subject property and basing on the same, the 1^st respondent issued notice to the petitioner on 13.03.2015. In response to the said notice, petitioner submitted her objections on 18.04.2015 contending that after a lapse of two decades the 1st respondent cannot reopen the issue of mutation basing on the frivolus representation of the 2nd respondent. However, the 1st respondent issued another notice dated 23.07.2015 informing the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 10.08.2015. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

6. This Court on 03.09.2015 suspended the impugned notice.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the name of the petitioner was mutated long ago basing on the sale deed dated 04.03.1995, as well as the consent given by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their mother. She contends that after a lapse of 20 years, the same issue cannot be reopened and adjuciated by the 1^st respondent.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 326(1) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and Alteration of Ownership of Property in Assessment Books Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules, 1966), respondent No.1 cannot proceed with the enquiry or alter the mutation effected 20 years ago in the property register, unless the claimant submits documentary proof of ownership. In the present case, no document has been produced by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to establish their ownership over the subject property. She further submits that if respondent Nos.2 and 3 have any claim, they should approach the competent Civil Court, establish their rights over the subject property and thereafter seek change of entries in the assessment register before the 1^st respondent.

Therefore, respondent No.1 ought not to have entertainedthe representation and proceeded with the enquiry. By contending thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the writ petition.

9. Le