ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chatla Madhu, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the entire property previously was joint family property, held in the name of Karta Sri G.Shanker Reddy, who is the father of the petitioner’s husband i.e Sri Shankar Reddy, who died on 17.02.1996 and the wife of Sri Shankar Reddy i.e. Smt G.Rajmani died on 16.12.2000. The petitioner’s husband – Sri G.Pandu Reddy @ G.Pandu Ranga Reddy acquired house property bearing Municipal No.2-9-102 admeasuring 224.36 sq. yards situated at Buttonguda, Macha Bolaram, Alwal Municipality, Medchal Taluq, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District towards his share from the ancestral property. The petitioner’s husband Pandu Ranga Reddy bequeathed the said property in petitioners favour under a Gift Deed bearing document No.318/1, dated 01.02.2011. After becoming the owner of the subject property, the petitioner approached the respondent herein on 03.06.2011 for mutation of the petitioner’s name in the municipal records by putting up proper application along with annexures as is required. On 28.06.2011, the respondent has issued notice calling upon the petitioner to submit the death certificate, family members’ certificate of Sri G.Shankar Reddy and also no objection affidavit of the family members of late G.Shankar Reddy. The petitioner has given reply to the said notice on 17.07.2011 stating that as all the other family members of late G.Shankar Reddy are residing separately, the petitioner is unable to submit the family member certificate and no objection affidavit of other members of the family, but however, the petitioner submitted death certificate of late G.Shankar Reddy. The case of the petitioner further is that in spite of specific application made by the petitioner on 03.06.2011, the respondent did not pass any order of refusal, but instead called upon the petitioner for the documents to be submitted are otherwise are not relevant for the mutation of the property and finally the petitioner received the impugned order vide No. A2/CSC/26052/2011-12, dated 06.03.2012 observing as follows: “As such, in the absence of documents called for, the request of the petitioner for mutation of House No.2-9-102 in the name of the petitioner may not be considered. Hence, this is for information.” 3. Hence, this is for information.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends as follows: a) Though the petitioner made an application on 03.06.2011, the respondent did not pass any order of refusal, but called for the documents to be submitted which otherwise are not relevant for the mutation of the property. b) The respondent did not adopt the procedure as mandated under Section 3 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Registry of the Transfer of Ownership of Properties in the Assessment Book) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘ the HMC Rules, 1965’). c) It is not for the respondent corporation to decide the title of the property and under a registered Gift Deed, the title has already been passed on to the party concerned and any person, who is aggrieved by the said decision, should approach a proper Court of law, in this regard. d) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record Memo dated 25.06.2013, with reference to the instructions issued by the Government relating to issuance of Family Members Certificate by the Tahsildar concerned and emphasized that as per the said memo dated 25.06.2013, the Mandal Revenue Officers are not competent to issue Legal Heir Certificate and only Courts of law are competent to issue legal heir/succession certificates and that the Mandal Revenue Officer can only issue Family Membership Certificate in respect of the Government employees and that too to receive Government dues, if any dues are payable to the Government servant, in case of death. e) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment reported in Nand Kishwar Bux Roy v Gopal Bux Rai and others, AIR 1940 PC 93 and contends that the mutation proceedings are merely in the nature of fiscal inquiries, instituted in the interest of the state for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the occupation of the property may be put into occupation of it with the greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid. f) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Calcutta Municipal Corporation and others v Shrey Mercantile (P) Limited and others, ( 2005 (4) SCC 245 , in Civil Appeal No.5631 of 2000 decided on 09.03.2005 and contends that mutation enquiry is instituted in the interest of the corporation for tax purposes and not for the benefit of the tax payer and further the purpose of mutation is to register the transfer in the records of the corporation which in turn would help the corporation to recover taxes from the existing tax payers. g) Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment in B.Neeraja v Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division Ranga Reddy District, 2013 (5) ALD 579 and contends that neither in the Act nor under the Rules, it is laid down that obtaining Legal Heir Certificate is a sine qua non for mutation. 4. Learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation, on the other hand, relies on para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and contends that in response to the office notice dated 06.03.2011 of the respondent, the petitioner submitted death certificate of late G.Shanker Reddy only and could not submit the other remaining documents referred to in the notice dated 06.03.2011 of the respondent herein that is (1) family member certificate of late G.Shanker Reddy (2) No objection affidavit from family members of late G.Shankar Reddy. Then vide intimation Lr.No.A2/CSC/26052/2011, dated 15.11.2011 the petitioner was called upon to submit further documents to satisfy the request of the petitioner and that the respondent is entitled to call for further documents to satisfy the request of the petitioner and that the petitioner, however, failed to submit the required documents for mutation of the property No.2-9-102 in the name of the petitioner. As such the petitioner had been informed vide impugned order No.A2/CSC/26052/2011-12, dated 06.03.2012, that the petitioner’s request may not be considered. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent and on perusal of the record, this Court opines as follows: a) Admittedly, as borne on record in spite of specific application made by the petitioner on 03.06.2011, the respondent did not pass any order of refusal adopting the procedure prescribed under Section 3 of the HMC Rules, 1965. Section 3 of the HMC Rules, 1965 is extracted hereunder: “Section 3: In effecting changes in the ownership of properties in the Assessment Books on the application of any party, whether as a general revision or between one general revision and another, the Commissioner or any officer duly authorized by him, shall observe the following provisions, namely:- (1) Transfer by voluntary action of owners:- In all cases of absolute transfer of title, the registry of properties may be altered to correspond with the transfer of ownership of such properties on a notice given to the Commissioner or any officer duly authorized by him in Form I prescribed in Schedule ‘F’ to the Act by both the parties to the transfer to either of them: Provided that the notice for register of the transfer it, and given of ownership shall be in writing and signed by the party or parties giving within three months from the date of execution of the instrument of transfer or where the instrument is registered, within three months from the date of such registration. Such notice may be send by post or presented in person or by a duly authorized agent. Where such notice is given by both the parties and one of them is the registered owner, the registry of the transfer of ownership may be ordered at once. But where only one of the parties to transfer gives notice, a notice stating that one of the parties to the transfer has given notice for the registry of the transfer of ownership shall be served on the other party. Where the registered owner is not a party to the transaction, notice shall be served on the registered owner also where the transfer of registry is presented by both the parties or either of them. If the registered owner objects to the proposed registry of the transfer of ownership, no change shall be made unless the person who claims to be the owner produces evidence to the satisfaction of the Commissioner or any officer duly authorized by him. Where only one party to the transaction given notice and the other either objects to the registry of the transfer of ownership or does not take any steps, the transaction shall evidenced by documents regarding the genuineness of which the Commissioner shall satisfy himself before ordering the registry of the transfer of ownership. Where only one party to the transaction given notice and the other either objects to the registry of the transfer of ownership or does not take any steps, the transaction shall evidenced by documents regarding the genuineness of which the Commissioner shall satisfy himself before ordering the registry of the transfer of ownership. In the absence of such documents, statements of neighbours of the property, the transfer of ownership of which is sought to be registered and the tax receipts, if any, may be taken in to considerations. Objection, if any, shall be filed by the parties with in one month from the date of issue of the notice and shall be considered by the commissioner or any officer duly authorized by him in this behalf.” b) A bare perusal of Section 3 of the HMC Rules, 1965 clearly indicates that in the absence of documents, statements of entries of the property, transfer of ownership of which is sought to be registered and the tax receipts, if any, may be taken into consideration and a detailed procedure is stipulated for the respondent herein under Section 3 of the HMC Rules, which has to be necessarily followed by the respondent herein. But the said mandatory procedure has been totally ignored and without application of mind, mechanically, the impugned order has been issued to the petitioner, which is not actually an order. The application of the petitioner dated 03.06.2011 has not been considered in a proper perspective as per the spirit and procedure contemplated under Section 3 of the HMC Rules, 1965. 6. It is very clear that as per the memo dated 25.06.2013, the Mandal Revenue Officers are not competent to issue Legal Heir Certificate and only Courts of law are competent to issue Legal Heir Certificate and further that the Mandal Revenue Officer can give only Family Membership Certificate in respect of Government employees and that too to receive Government dues, if any, dues are payable to the Government servant, in case of death. Therefore, the respondent herein cannot insist for the Family Membership Certificate of late G.Shanker Reddy. 7. The respondent herein did not consider the explanation dated 17.07.2011 submitted by the petitioner herein in response to the notice dated 28.06.2011. Therefore, the respondent herein cannot insist for the Family Membership Certificate of late G.Shanker Reddy. 7. The respondent herein did not consider the explanation dated 17.07.2011 submitted by the petitioner herein in response to the notice dated 28.06.2011. It is clearly explained in the said explanation that the petitioner’s husband got himself separated from his other family members’ long long back and are living independently, for a long considerable period and therefore, it is very difficult to obtain no objection of the family members of late G.Shanker Reddy. 8. Under these circumstances, taking in to consideration, the view taken by the Apex Court in the judgments (1) Nand Kishwar Bux Roy (2) Calcutta Municipal Corporation and others and (3) B.Neeraja referred supra, and also the fact that admittedly as borne on record, the entire procedure laid down under Section 3 of the HMC Rules, 1965 has not been followed by the respondent herein and the respondent admittedly did not pass any order of refusal on the specific application dated 03.06.2011 made by the petitioner since in the last para of the letter dated 06.03.2012, it is observed as follows: “As such in the absence of documents called for the request of the petitioner for mutation of H.No.2-9-102 in the name of the petitioner may not be considered. Hence, this is for information.” 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 06.03.2012 is set aside and the respondent is directed to consider the application dated 03.06.2011 of the petitioner afresh in a proper perspective as per the spirit and procedure laid down under Section 3 of the HMC Rules, 1965, duly considering the explanation of the petitioner dated 17.07.2011 in reply to the Notice dated 28.06.2011 of the respondent and pass appropriate orders, within four weeks, in accordance with law, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.