ORDER: SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. The present writ petition has been filed, declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 22.01.2009, in proceedings No.MCR No.749, along with the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 18.10.2008 issued in proceedings No.A1/2414/2008, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to rules, without application of mind and also with a prejudiced mind to help the respondent Nos.3 to 5, and consequently sought a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to entertain any mutation proceedings in respect of the disputed house bearing H.No.2-1-170/2/3 along with open land comprising 546 square yards, situated at Aaravadi Veedi, Suryapet, Nalgonda in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5, and also to restore the entries of the petitioners, in place of their late father in the assessment registers of the 2nd respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners’ father Mohd. Moulana Saheb s/o. late Nabi Saheb, alleged to have purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.4½ guntas equivalent to 546 square yards in Sy.No.773, situated in Suryapet Town and Municipality, Nalgonda District, under a registered sale deed dated 23.11.1987, which was registered as document No.3661/1987 and it is also contended by the writ petitioners that the said property was purchased by their father, and that during the lifetime of their father, they have applied for municipal sanction permission for construction of house and the 1st respondent had granted permission vide proceedings No.D/25/91-92 dated 17.05.1991, for construction of a house and compound wall, and due to paucity of funds, only four rooms were constructed along with compound wall, and the total compound wall was not constructed around the total land, and they have been living in the said land. It is also contended that while so, their father expired on 16.04.1996, leaving behind the petitioners, their mother and also two sisters, and the said two sisters were married and have been living with their husbands, and that the petitioners have been in constant possession and enjoyment of the said house and along with the appurtenant land as on the date. 3. 3. It is also contended that subsequent to the death of their father, both sisters and mother, who are also having equal share out of the said land, have executed registered Release Deed dated 16.10.2006, in their favor, which was registered as document No.4500/2006 and thus, the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the said property admeasuring 546 square yards along with the house thereupon, and it is further stated that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein, who are the brothers of their late father, having developed an evil eye to grab their house, and having managed the 2nd respondent, got the mutation proceedings bearing No.A1/2414/2006, dated 24.04.2006 in their favor bifurcating the house numbers as 2-1-170/2/3/A to C, though there are no structures other than four rooms constructed by their father, more so, the petitioners are residing in the same house. It is contended that, the mutation proceedings were obtained by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein with the active collusion of the respondent No.2 and questioning the said mutation proceedings in favor of respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein dated 24.04.2006, the petitioner's mother alleged to have filed W.P.No.24370 of 2006 before this Court, which was allowed by this Court on 29.11.2006 with the following observations: “Taking into consideration the fact that neither the petitioner nor other legal heirs of Mohd. Moulana Saheb has been put on notice before effecting the mutation proceedings, the impugned mutation proceedings are hereby set aside, and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to put all the parties said to be interested in the property in question and make appropriate orders in relation thereto at an early date,” 4. It is contended that while so, basing on the mutation proceedings issued in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the 5th respondent had applied for permission and the same was granted on 08.11.2006 by the 2nd respondent and the application of the petitioners for grant of permission was kept pending. Further, they have filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11761 of 2008 challenging the grant of permission to the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein, which is pending adjudication before this Court. It is contended that after the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, dated 29.11.2006 in W.P.No.24370 of 2006. Further, they have filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11761 of 2008 challenging the grant of permission to the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein, which is pending adjudication before this Court. It is contended that after the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, dated 29.11.2006 in W.P.No.24370 of 2006. The 2nd respondent had issued notices to the petitioners along with the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein and consequently, issued proceedings No.A1/2414/2005 dated 01.03.2007 setting aside the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 and the consequential proceedings bearing No.A1/2414/2005, dated 09.08.2007 was also issued deleting the names of respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein by restoring the name of their late father in the revenue records. It is contended that the said proceedings have become final as they were not questioned subsequently. 5. Further, it is also contended that while so, the person working as Commissioner of the 2nd respondent Municipality was transferred and the present incumbent had took the charge and the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein have started their efforts once again, and under the influence of the respondent Nos.3 to 5, the 2nd respondent alleged to have reopened their case for hearing, and issued notices, and thereupon, the 2nd respondent after conducting an inquiry, has passed orders once again by conducting enquiry vide proceedings No.A1/2414/2008 dated 18.10.2008. It is contended that assailing the same, the petitioners filed the W.P.No.23381 of 2008 before this Court and this Court after considering the facts on record, as there is alternative appeal provided for the writ petitioners to challenge the order dated 18.10.2008 under Rule 7 of the A.P. Municipalities (Alternation of Ownership of Property in Assessment Books) Rules, 1966, this Court relegated the petitioners to file an appeal before the Council i.e., 1st respondent against the orders dated 18.10.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent and subsequently, it is contended that writ petitioners have filed Appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent reiterating the same has rejected the said Appeal without valid reasons and as such, the present writ petition is filed before this Court questioning the orders of the 1st respondent. 6. 6. The basic contention of the writ petitioners is that, when the mutation proceedings dated 24.04.2006 in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5 were granted, W.P.No.24370 of 2006 was filed before this Court and this Court by setting aside the orders of mutation proceedings dated 24.04.2006, directed the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry and in pursuance of the same, the 2nd respondent has already heard the matter and consequently, orders were also passed and while so, the new Commissioner, who took the charge of the Office of the 2nd respondent, cannot review its own orders by reopening the case and as such, though the Appeal has been filed, it has not been properly adjudicated by the 1st respondent. It is contended that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to alter to their own orders. 7. Per contra, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein have filed counter-affidavit contending that there were suits and counter suits filed by the writ petitioners and also the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein and that in fact, after passing of the orders by this Court, remitting the matter back to the 2nd respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry in W.P.No.24370 of 2006. The 2nd respondent has only intimated the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24370 of 2006 dated 29.11.2006 and that consequential orders are only passed setting aside the mutation proceedings in favour of the respondent Nos.3 vide to 5 order dated 09.08.2007, but, however, no fresh enquiry was conducted as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.24370 of 2006 dated 29.11.2006 and subsequently, the fresh enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner and after proper enquiry, mutation proceedings were restored in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and as such, the 1st respondent also, on appeal by the writ petitioner, has dismissed the Appeal of the writ petitioner, as no valid grounds are produced. 8. Heard Mr. T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.R. Vishnu Murthy, learned counsel representing Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities for respondent Nos.1 & 2, and Mr. Abhinav Krishna Uppaluri, learned counsel representing Mr. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 9. 8. Heard Mr. T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.R. Vishnu Murthy, learned counsel representing Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities for respondent Nos.1 & 2, and Mr. Abhinav Krishna Uppaluri, learned counsel representing Mr. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 9. The basic contention of the petitioners is that, by virtue of order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 01.03.2007 in proceedings No.A1/2414/2005 and consequential order dated 09.08.2007 in Proceedings No.A2/2414/2005, the case of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 were already considered pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24370 of 2006 dated 29.11.2006 and once again, the very same Commissioner cannot conduct a review of the earlier order. Evidently as seen from the orders of this Court in W.P.No.24370 of 2006, dated 29.11.2006, this Court while setting aside the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 5, directed the 2nd respondent to conduct a enquiry afresh and pass appropriate orders by giving due notice to the respective parties. The orders in proceedings No.A1/2114/2005, dated 01.03.2007, the orders of this Court in W.P.No.24370 of 2006, dated 29.11.2006 have been intimated to the parties, but no fresh enquiry is conducted as per the directions of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. For better understanding of the case, the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 01.03.2007 are hereby extracted. “The Hon’ble High Court of A.P., in their Writ Petition No.24370/2006 dated 24.04.2006 have set aside the mutation of property of H.No.2-1-170/2/3 made by the Commissioner, Suryapet Municipality and issued orders accordingly to take action within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said Hon’ble High Court orders. Consequent on the basis of the Hon’ble High Court orders, mutation proceedings No.A1/2414/ 2006, dated 24.04.2006 of part of H.No.2-1-170/2/3 i.e., H.No.2-1-170/2/3/A, H.No.2-1-170/2/3/B, and H.No.2-1-170/2/3/C are hereby set aside.” 10. Consequent on the basis of the Hon’ble High Court orders, mutation proceedings No.A1/2414/ 2006, dated 24.04.2006 of part of H.No.2-1-170/2/3 i.e., H.No.2-1-170/2/3/A, H.No.2-1-170/2/3/B, and H.No.2-1-170/2/3/C are hereby set aside.” 10. That the very wording of the said order dated 01.03.2007 only would reveal that consequent upon the orders of this Court, the mutation proceedings were set aside, but, however, the order do not indicate as to conducting of any enquiry by the 2nd respondent and perusal of the consequential order dated 09.08.2007, consequent upon setting aside the assessment order of this Court, the assessment order granted in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5 was cancelled, but, however, no fresh enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent after cancellation of the said assessment order by virtue of the orders passed in W.P.No.24370 of 2006 dated 29.11.2006. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent in pursuance of the orders in W.P.no.24370 of 2006, dated 29.11.2006 has taken up the enquiry and issued notice dated 16.07.2008 to the writ petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 and the orders were passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.A1/2414/2008 dated 18.10.2008. It is evident that the 2nd respondent has not reviewed the orders, but has conducted fresh enquiry in pursuance of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.24370 of 2006, dated 29.11.2006. Thus, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent has either exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned proceedings dated 18.10.2008, nor do the said proceedings amount to a review of the order dated 01.03.2007. 11. Further, as the Appeal was filed before the 1st respondent, who after due enquiry has found that no valid reasons are made out by the writ petitioners to interdict the order dated 18.10.2008. The petitioners have not made out any valid grounds for interference and have not substantially proved that the impugned proceedings are bad in law and untenable. As the writ petitioners contended that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have no right over the subject property, they ought to have filed declaration suit for redressal of their grievance and it is settled law that this Court cannot decide title issue in writ petition and if the writ petitioners desire so, they may file appropriate suits for redressal of their grievance. 12. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. 12. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. There shall be o order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications if any pending shall stand closed.