IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.3927 of 2015

11^th MARCH, 2026 Between:

Yalamarthy Ravindra Babu, S/o. Late Dharma Rao, aged 50 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No.10-2-29, Substation Bazar, Paloncha, Khammam District.

...Petitioner and The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.

...Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“...to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd Respondent to mutate the name of the Petitioner in respect of house bearing Municipal No.10-2-29, situated at Sub- station Bazar, Paloncha, Khammam District in pursuance of the legal notice dated 15-12-2014 and representation dated 14-2-2015 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and subsequently direct the 2^nd Respondent to mutate the name of the Petitioner in respect of the above said premises in question in the interest of justice and pass...”

2. Ms.P.V.V.B.Rajeswari, learned counsel representing Mr.Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that in view of the mutation proceedings issued by incorporating the name of the 3^rd respondent in the municipal records, the present writ petition filed challenging the inaction of respondent No.2 regarding the petitioner’s earlier representation dated 14.02.2015 and legal notice dated 15.12.2014, in mutating his name no longer survives. Once mutation has been effected, the petitioner should specifically challenge the mutation proceedings.

Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

3. Mr.Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for respondent No.2 does not dispute the said submission.

4. On the other hand, Mr.M.Pratheek Reddy, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to file a fresh petition specifically challenging the mutation proceedings issued in favor of Respondent No.3.

5. Permission is accorded.

6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty as sought for. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Date:11.03.2026 KRL