Municipal authorities must follow due process and issue a reasoned order when deciding mutation requests, especially when competing claims of inheritance via a Will and adoption are presented.

ORDER

Heard Sri N.Rishi Kumar representing N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Yogesh Kumar Heroor representing Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief :-

“…to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents for taking mutation proceedings as per petitioner representation Dt- 27.06.2013 as illegal, arbitrary, against the provisions of AP Municipal Act, 1965 and Rules made there under and consequently direct the respondents to mutate the extent of property in their names as per the Will Deed Dt- 05.12.2011 executed by petitioner late mother …”

The brief facts as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioners are the daughters of Smt. Savitramma Gande and Sri Banappa Gande, who are the owners and occupiers of the property situated at Narayanapet Town, and that the father of the petitioners predeceased their mother and that Smt. Savitramma Gande expired on 26.03.2013. During her life time, she left behind the petitioners, who are her daughters, as the only successors to the property by virtue of a Will Deed executed by her on 05.02.2011 at Gulbarga vide document No.47/2010-11, registered on 11.02.2011. Thereafter, an application dated 27.06.2013 was filed for mutation of their names in respect of the property bequeathed under the said will deed. However, respondent No.1 has not mutated their names in the Municipal records.

Challenging the said inaction of respondent No.1, the present Writ Petition is filed.

The implead petitioner, Sri Gande Ravishankar, filed an objection petition before respondent No.1 stating that the said Smt. Gande Savitramma along with Sri Gande Banappa had adopted him as their son through a registered adoption deed executed on 04.03.1993. Therefore, the said Sri Gande Ravishankar claims title over the said property.

Learned Standing Counsel Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, reiterating the contentions mentioned in the counter affidavit, would contend that it is true that the representation was filed by the petitioners seeking mutation of their names in respect of the house bequeathed by virtue of a Will Deed. However, the implead petitioner i.e., respondent No.3, Sri Gande Ravishankar has filed an objection petition dated 05.07.2013 along with a registered adoption deed dated 11.03.1993 stating that Smt. Savitramma and Sri Banappa had adopted him as their son and he does not have any sons and only has daughters.

Evidently, though the representation was filed by the petitioners for mutation of their names in the Municipal records, since an objection was filed by Sri Ravishankar Gande claiming to be the adopted son, respondent No.1 has not considered the said representation. Though, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that it is not feasible to consider the request of the petitioners for effecting mutation in their favour as objections were received from respondent No.3, Gande Ravishankar, claiming to be one of the legal heirs of Smt. Savitramma and Sri Banappa, respondent No.1 ought to have passed a proper and reasoned order by following the due procedure envisaged under the law, either accepting or rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to follow the due procedure of law contemplated under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and the Rules made thereunder, and dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 27.06.2013 by duly considering the objections raised by respondent No.3, Sri Ravishankar, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, by issuing notices to the petitioners as well as respondent No.3 an