Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1566 (TS)

Palwai Keerthana v. State of Telangana

2025-11-19

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This writ petition is filed declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in issuing proceedings vide Roc.No.A3/10628/2010-16, dated 18.08.2016, mutating the name of Smt.B.Geetha Rani @ Bandla Geetha, i.e. 5 th respondent in respect of the premises bearing Municipal H.No.1-7-859, Shanthi Nagar Colony, Hunter road, Hanamkonda, Warangal (for short ‘subject property’) as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the mandatory procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the GHMC Act , 1955. 2. Heard Sri B.Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioners on record, Sri Prasham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 reported no instructions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners represented that originally one E.Indrasena Reddy, i.e., maternal Grand Father of the petitioners, purchased the land admeasuring 680 square yards under two registered sale deeds for 340 square yards each; that the said land was given to the mother of the petitioners as ‘pasupu kumkuma’ on 26.06.1992 at the time of her marriage. Subsequently, petitioners’ father constructed a house on the north-western side of the said land along with servant quarters and the said house was assigned the municipal number as H.No.1-7-859, Shanthi Nagar Colony, Hunter Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal; and that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. He further submits that the mother of the petitioners expired on 20.10.1994 and thereafter the petitioners’ grand-father at the instigation of his second daughter i.e. respondent No.5, filed OS.No.126 of 1997 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, for injunction simplicitor in respect of 340 square yards; that when the respondent No.5 tried to dispossess the petitioners, the petitioners have filed suit in OS.No.1100 of 1998. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the year 1994 the grand-father of the petitioners filed suit in OS.No.48 of 1994 for declaration and injunction on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in respect of the subject property. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the year 1994 the grand-father of the petitioners filed suit in OS.No.48 of 1994 for declaration and injunction on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in respect of the subject property. While the things stood thus, at the intervention of elders and well wishers the suit filed by the petitioners i.e. OS.No.1100 of 1998 was compromised before the Lok Adalat declaring the petitioners as owners and possessors of the subject property; and that OS.No.126 of 1997 filed by the grand-father of the petitioners was decreed conditionally directing the petitioners’ father to pay a sum of Rs.1,48,000/- to the grand-father of the petitioners, and as differences arose between petitioners’ father and petitioners’ grand-father, petitioners’ grand-father filed Execution Petition No.412 of 2000, and the same was dismissed on 09.08.2004. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners’ grand-father filed CRP No.5195 of 2006 before this Court and the same was also dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners filed application dated 06.04.2010 before the 2 nd respondent Corporation for mutation of their names in the municipal records in respect of the subject property and the said application was pending for consideration. While so, respondent No.5 also filed an application for mutation of her name in the municipal records in respect of 340 square yards out of 680 square yards of the subject property basing on the registered gift settlement deed dated 14.05.2012 executed by the petitioners’ grand-father, for which the petitioners filed objections on 15.12.2015 and 18.12.2015 before the respondent Corporation. The respondent No.2 without considering the decree dated 20.08.1999 passed by the Lok Adalath and without considering the objections filed by the petitioners, issued proceedings in Roc.No.A3/10628/2010-16, dated 18.08.2016 ordered for mutation of the name of respondent No.5 in the municipal records in respect of 340 square yards of the subject property. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of passing of compromise decree dated 20.08.1999 in OS.No.1100/1998, filed by the petitioners against their grand- father before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, and declaration of petitioners herein as owners and possessors of the entire subject property, the gift settlement deed dated 14.05.2012 vide document No.4391/2012, executed in favour of respondent No.5 by the petitioner’s grand-father, is invalid. 8. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that respondent No.5 has submitted her sworn affidavit before the respondent No.2 stating that she was intending to transfer the subject property which was gifted by petitioners’ grand-father vide gift settlement deed No.4391/2012, dated 14.05.2012, in favour of petitioners’ mother and the petitioners and that she has no objection for mutation of the names of petitioners in the municipal records in respect of subject property. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners finally submits that in view of sworn affidavit submitted by respondent No.5, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for mutation of their names in the municipal records and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 represent that in the light of subsequent developments of submission of sworn affidavit by respondent No.5, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to pass appropriate orders on the application of petitioners, in accordance with law. 11. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned proceedings vide Roc.No.A3/10628/2010-16, dated 18.08.2016, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is directed to consider the issue afresh by duly issuing notices and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent No.5 and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law. The respondent No.2 shall complete the entire 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.