Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1556 (TS)

Nukala Satyavathi v. State of Telangana

2025-11-18

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings vide order No.A1/602/2012, dated 17.12.2012, by assigning the H.No.1-1-422/4/2/6 to the property situated at Bechirag Madaram, Suryapet town and Mandal, Nalgonda District in favour of respondent No.3 and not cancelling the same basing on the petitioner’s complaint dated 10.10.2014, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction. 2. Heard Sri Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. There is no representation on behalf of unofficial respondent No.3, despite service of notice. Therefore, the matter is being disposed of basing on the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land in Survey No. 267, admeasuring 242 square yards, situated at Block No. 1, Ward No. 1, in Bechirag Madaram Revenue Village, Suryapet Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District (for short, “the subject property”). The petitioner acquired the subject property under a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 2407 of 2010, dated 09.03.2010, executed by her vendors, Nagasuri Srilaxmi and Siddemsetti Harini. The said vendors had earlier purchased the subject property from Gelli Dhanalaxmi under a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 3555 of 2004, dated 30.11.2004, who, in turn, had purchased it from the original owner, Narendruni Ramaiah, under a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 3160 of 1995, dated 16.09.1995. While so, the petitioner came to know that some land grabbers in the vicinity have obtained house number in their favour against the subject property. Therefore, he approached respondent No.2 and lodged a written complaint dated 10.10.2014 to cancel the house number assigned in favour of respondent no.3 in respect of petitioner’s property. However, respondent No.2 did not take any action. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed suit in OS.No.267 of 2014 before the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, for perpetual injunction along with IA.No.705 of 2014 seeking ad interim injunction and the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet granted ad-interim injunction in favour of petitioner vide order dated 03.11.2014. He also submits that the respondent No.3 was never in possession of the subject property, particularly, as on the date of passing impugned proceedings dated 17.12.2012. He also submits that the respondent No.3 was never in possession of the subject property, particularly, as on the date of passing impugned proceedings dated 17.12.2012. He further submits that respondent No.3 falsely represented before respondent No.2-Municipality, that he had purchased the subject property from L.Vijaya, who is not the owner of the subject property. He further submits that the petitioner lodged a police complaint against respondent No.3 before the SHO, Suryapet Town Police Station for the offences under Sections 420 , 448 and 506 of IPC which was registered as Crime No.65/2015 and investigation is pending. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that contrary to the provisions of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and Mutation Rules, 1966, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order basing on the application of respondent No.3 for mutation of his name in respect of subject property. He further submits that before passing the impugned order, the respondent No.2 ought to have issued notice to the affected parties i.e. to the petitioner. Since the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 17.12.2012, without issuing notice to the petitioner, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner’s name was mutated basing on the registered sale deed bearing document No.2407 of 2010, dated 09.03.2010. However, respondent No.2 without following due process has entertained the application of respondent No.3 for mutation of his name in respect of subject property and passed impugned proceedings contrary to the provisions of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and Mutation Rules, 1966. 7. Counter has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 stating that the impugned mutation proceedings dated 17.12.2012 were issued by following due process as contemplated under A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and Mutation Rules, 1966. It is further stated that the mutation is purely and administrative action undertaken for a fixed purpose and no rights either accrue or determined in the mutation proceedings; that both a civil case and criminal case are pending in respect of subject property; and that the authorities would follow the outcome of pending cases and take appropriate action accordingly. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the records pertaining to the impugned mutation order dated 17.12.2012 are not available in the office of respondent- Municipality. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the records pertaining to the impugned mutation order dated 17.12.2012 are not available in the office of respondent- Municipality. Therefore, the respondent No.2 could not produce notices or any material in proof of issuance of notice to the petitioner herein before passing impugned mutation proceedings and prayed to pass appropriate orders. 9. Though, it is stated that due process has been followed, the counter is silent as to whether any notice has been issued to the petitioner herein before passing the impugned mutation proceedings. Further, no material in proof of issuance of notice or hearing if any held by respondent No.2, has been placed on record. 10. It is relevant to refer to the A.P. Municipalities (Alteration of ownership of property in assessment books) Rules, 1966 which is also called Municipalities Mutation Rules, 1966. As per Rule-3 of A.P.Municipalities (Alteration of Ownership of Property in Assessment Books) Rules, 1966, the authorities have to issue notice to the affected parties before entertaining any application for mutation. Admittedly, in the present case, no such notice has been issued by respondent No.2 and no material was placed on record to prove that a notice has been issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 17.12.2012 is contrary to Rule-3 of A.P.Municipalities (Alteration of Ownership of Property in Assessment Books) Rules, 1966 as well as provisions of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned notice dated 17.12.2012 issued by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 and pass appropriate orders on the application dated 29.11.2012 submitted by respondent No.3, strictly in accordance with the provisions of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and Mutation Rules, 1966. Respondent No.2 is directed to complete the aforesaid exercise, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.