IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO.6878 OF 2014 DATE: 23.02.2026 Between:

Mohd. Khan s/o. late Mahaboob Khan (Died as per LRs)

and five others.

…. Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, (Municipal Administration & Urban Development), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others.

…. Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr. N.Mahesh, learned counsel representing Mr. K.Pathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the GHMC for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed declaring the action of the respondent-Corporation in changing the name of ownership of the premises bearing No.1-58/1/A & B & C & D & E & F & G (Assessment No.PTIN 1129912022) of Miyapur, Circle-XII, GHMC, Serilingampally, West Zone, Hyderabad, standing in the name of the petitioner to Masjid property in the Property Assessment Books, without issuing any notice and authority of law, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the name of the original petitioner as the owner of the aforesaid property in the Property Assessment Books.

3. The basic assertion of the original petitioner is that, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the above said premises and that the said property has been succeeded by him by way of succession, that before merger of Serilingampally Municipality into the 2nd respondent-Corporation, Serilingampally Municipality used to collect the property tax in the name of petitioner-Mohd.Khan Muthavalli and his name was only reflecting in the assessment books and the 2^nd respondent-Corporation was also collecting the property tax in the name of petitioner. Suddenly, in the tax receipt, instead of his name, it is mentioned as Masjid property without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. It is stated that an application dated 03.05.2013 is made by the petitioner under RTI Act to the 3rd respondent along with documentary proof that property stands in his name. It is asserted that he is the absolute owner of the said property and requested the 3rd respondent to furnish details with regard to change of his name and basis for changing the same, by letter dated 02.03.2013, the petitioner alleged to have furnished detailed information with regard to tax receipts, bank statements etc., so as to prove that he is the absolute owner of the premises. It is contended that however without considering the same, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Lr.No.C1/17/13/RTI/CIR-12/WZ, dated 12.03.2013 has stated that the above premises is a Masjid property as per the office records and hence, the name of petitioner was removed, however, directed the writ petitioner to produce further documents. It is stated that the petitioner, having succeeded to the property, his name has been recorded as the owner of the property in the assessment books and subsequently incorporation of the Masjid’s name as owner in the assessment books, without giving any notice, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

4. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, would contend that counter-affidavit has been filed and the writ petitioner has not made out any case substantially for interference of this Court and that though petitioner was served upon the notice to prove his ownership by way of succession, he has only produced the tax receipt No.6599 dated 11.06.1996 purported to be issued by the erstwhile Lingampally Municipality and not furnished any valid documents. Further, the said bill number was fabricated by the petitioner and not authorized and no other prima facie title is filed to claim the scheduled property. It is also stated that erstwhile Lingampally Municipality has been merged into Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation during the year 2007 and after merging all the properties in the circle, they