The High Court · 2025

notice to Petitioner or without any title, basing on the fraud/created documents and not to entertain any further mutation in respect of H. No. 4-60, 4-61 situated at Pakhal Road, Narsampet , Warangal District pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.RAM MOHAN REDDY, SC FOR MPCL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI D.RAMESH The Court made the following: ORDER .. // / t ,/ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.12952 of 2024 OR.DER: This Writ Petition is flled questioning the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering the representation of the petitioner dt.I2.04.2024, whereby she has sought for cancellation of illegal mutation of house bearing Nos.4-60 and 4-61 situated at Pakhal Road, Narsampet, Warangal District, in favour of the 3'd respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioner being the original owner of the property, and without having any right, title or possession, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, in violation of principles of natural justice and against Atticle 300 of the Constitution of India, with a consequential relief to cancel the mutation issued in favour of the 3'd respondent in respect of the subject house property.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for the 1't respondent, Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counset for Municipalities appearing for the 2'd respondent and Sri D.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitloner in brief is that her mother, viz., Vemulapally Jayamma @Jayalaxmi, is the original owner of the house I 2 bearing Nos.4-60 and 4-61 situated at pakhal Road, Narsampet, Warangal District; that the aforesaid property was acquired by the petitioner under registered Will Deed dt.O1.05.2010 executed by her mother during her life time; that her mother, the executant of the Will Deed, had deceased on

23.10.20L6; and that the subject house property has been mutated on to her name in municipal records and she is in possession of the same.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 3d respondent, who is none other than the sister of the petitioner, is claiming the subject propety under a purported unregistered Settlement Deed dt.09.04.2001 stated to have been executed in her favour by the mother of the petitioner and the 3'd respondent; that the 3'd respondent had filed a suit, vide O.S.No.94 of 2020 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Narasmpet, for perpetual injunction in respect of the subject property against the petitioner; and that interlocutory application, being I.A.No.lgg ot ZO2O, filed by the 3'd respondent in the aforesaid suit seeking for ad interim injunction was dismissed by the concerned Civil Court on Z2.OB.2OZ2, observing that the 3'd respondent had failed to prove her possession over the subject property.

5. Petitioner further contends that based on the registered Will Deed, the subject property was mutated on to her name by deleting her mother's name on 28.08.2023, while the 3d respondent had applied for mutation on to her name claiming the subject property was setUed in her I / 3 favour under unregistered Settlement Deed dt.09.04.2001, by getting the same validated on 04.08.2020.

6. It is the further case of the petitloner that the 3'd respondent, on getting the unregistered Settlement Deed validated, had applied for mutation of the subject property on 22.03.2022; that the respondents- authorities without issuing any notice to the other legal heirs of late Vemulapally Jayamma @layalaxmi (mother), had mutated the immovable property bearing House Nos.4-60 and 4-61 in favour of the 3'd respondent; and that the 3'd respondent has settled the subject property further in favour of her son i.e. the 4ff respondent herein, under registered Deed of Settlement dt.04.04'2024 and on the basis of the aforesaid registered Settlement Deed, the subject propefi has been mutated on to the name of the 4th respondent in order to defeat the claim of the petitioner to the subject property, having failed to secure an injunction order in the suit filed by the 3'd respondent.

7. It is also the further case of the petitioner that while the boundaries of the subject property mentioned in the registered Will Deed would match with the boundaries of the property in possession of the petitioner, the boundaries of the propety being claimed by the 3'd respondent under an unregistered Settlement Deed which is further settled in favour of the 4th respondent to an extent of 242 square yards do not match with the boundaries of the property even though it is claimed as forming part of I I 1l the property in possession of the petitioner admeasuring 366 square yards; and that the 2nd respondent authority ought not to have mutated the subject property on to the name of the 3'd respondent on the basis of a validated settlement Deed as getting any document validated is only for the purpose of the same being used as evidence in collateral proceeding and does not attain the regar force as herd by a Division Bench of this court in the case of state of Terangana represented by its principal Secretary, Revenue Department v/s. p.Batabhaskar Reddf. B. Petitioner further contends that she had submitted a representation dt.1'2-04.2024 to the 2nd respondent bringing the aforesaid facts to his notice and sought for cancellation of the mutation of the subject property in favour of the 4th respondent pursuant to a registered settlement Deed executed by the 3'd respondent on 04.04.2024 and in spite of the petitioner submitting the aforesaid representation, no action is taken thereon by the 2"d respondent. Hence, this petition.

9. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, written instructions have been submitted by the 2nd respondent.

10. By the written instructions, it is stated that the petitioner herein after the death of her mother, namely V.Jayalaxmi @ Jayamma, on I 2021 SCC Online TS 2591 '/ r' 5

23.10.2016, had submitted her application for mutation of the house bearingNos.4-60and4-61on08.06.2023;andthattheauthoritiesafter due enquiry, had mutated the subject property having the above house numbers on to the name of the petitioner herein' By the written instructions, it is further stated that the petitioner herein had acquired the houseandopenplaceofhousebearingNos.4-6Land4-62toanextentof 366 square yards through registered Will Deed vide documenl No'3 of 2010 dt.O1.05.2010 from her mother.

11. By the written instructions, it is further stated that the 3'd respondent hereln on the basis of the Settlement Deed had got the subject property mutated on to her name by making an application dt.72.03.2022 and the same was approved on 26'03.2022; that though the petitioner had submitted a representation claiming that the unregistered Settlement Deed dt.09.04.2001 to be a forged document and the said injunction application filed by the 3'd respondent in the suit, vriTe O.S.No.94 of 2020, against the petitioner herein having been dismissed, inasmuch as the said property has been mutated on to the name of the 3'd respondent on the basis of the validated document, the subject house bearing Nos.4-60 and 4-61 of Pakhal Road, Narsampet, stands in the name of the 3'd respondent, with Assessment No.1167000252. 6

12. By the written instructions, it is futher claimed that the 3rd respondent had further settled the subject property on to the name of the 4h respondent through a registered gift Settlement Deed dt.04.04.2024 and accordingly, the same has been mutated on to the name of the 4h respondent through IGRS system; and that the respondents-authorities did not receive any objection for mutating the said house on to any other names, nor there is any order from the Court restraining such mutation.

13. On behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, a counter-affidavit is filed by the 3'd respondent.

14. By the counter-affidavit, the 3d respondent contended that the petitioner's claim to the subject property is contrary to the registered wilr Deed dt.01.05.2010 alleged to have been executed by her mother; that there is no reference to house Nos.4-60 in the said registered wilr Deed; that their mother did not have any land admeasuring 366.01 square yards at Narsampet village, in which it was alreged that the house consisting of three rooms was constructed having municipal Nos.4-61 and 4_62; and that the recitals of the will Deed would show that her mother came in possession of the subject property along with agricultural land mentioned therein after the death of her husband, viz., the 3.d respondent,s father; that the petitioner had initiaily fired an apprication dt.18.05.2020 seeking mutation o( property bearing Nos.4-61 and 4-62 on the basis of the registered Will Deed dt.01.05.2010 and on the authorities c_alling for 1 objections, she having filed objections on 01.06.2020, the concerned authorities have issued notice dt.10.08.2020, informing the petitioner herein to approach the Civil Court to resolve the matter, as one of the house numbers in respect of which mutation is sought for, viz', House No.4-62 stands in the name of one G.Narsaiah, since long time. Insofar as petitioner claim to house bearing No.4-61 with appurtenant land admeasuring 242 square yards, on the basis of Will Deed purported to have been executed by her mother in respect of 366 square yards of land is concerned, it is contended that the said claim cannot be accepted as the Will Deed is not valid document having been brought into existence by the petitioner with a motive to knock away the property.

15. By the counter-affidavit, the 3'd respondent would further contend that since, the mutation of the property bearing Nos.4-60 and 4-61 was approved on to her name on 22.03.2022, the respondents-authoritles should not have approved the application of the petitioner on 26.08.2023, without notice to her, since the portal of the 2nd respondent clearly mentions the subject property having been mutated on to the name of the 3'd respondent on 22.03.2022 itself .

16. By the counter-affidavit, the 3'd respondent further contended that when her application for mutation was approved as long back as on

22.03.2022, the question of granting mutation in respect of very same I I I 1 8 properlry in the name of the petitioner on 26.08.2023 does not arise and the same is contrary to law.

17. The 3'd respondent by the counter-affidavit wourd further contend that the petitioner cannot maintain any craim wha'tsoever in respect of property bearing house No.4-60 under registered wiil Deed as the said registered wiil Deed does not incrude the said house number at a[, apart from the alleged Will Deed being only in respect of part of the house bearing No.4-61 allegedly consisting of three rooms atong with appurtenant land admeasuring 140 square yards, the. claim of the petitioner of she having title to the land admeasuring 366 square yards under registered Will Deed for it to be mutated on to her name and the same having been mutated on to her name cannot be considered as a valid claim.

18. I have taken note of the respective contentions urge 19' Firstly, it is to be noted that having regard to the contentions urged on beharf of the contesting parties to the present writ petition, the same would show that the same involves disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a Writ petition.

20. Secondly, since, the petitioner claims to be in possession of the house bearing Nos.4-60 and 4-61 under a registered Will Deed stated to have been executed by her mother, and as such, the 3',1 respondent 9 I / ,/ cannot claim any part of the said property and mutation of the subject property on to the name of the 3'd respondent in the year 2022, without issuing notice to her, it is to be noted that the petitioner except making such a claim did not place on record any material to show the subject propefty having been mutated on to her name after the death of her mother in the Year 2016. 21'.Itistobenotedthattheceftificateoftransfer/mutationofthe subject property bearing Nos.4-60 and 4-61 as placed on record of this Court would show that the petitioner having made an application on 26,08.2023formutationoftheaforesaidhousenumberfromhermother,S nameontohernameunderregisteredWillDeedoftheyear2010andthe same having been approved by the 2nd respondent authority on

28.08.2023.

22. On the other hand, the certificate of transfer/mutation of the subjectpropertybearingNos.4-60and4-6lasplacedonrecordofthis Courtbythepetitionerherselfwouldshowthatthesubjectpropertybeing transferred on to the name of the 3'd respondent herein on the basis of the application dt.22.03.2022 approved by the 2nd respondent authority on

26.03.2022, from petitioner's mother, thus the transfer/mutation of the subject property on to the name of the 3'd respondent is thus prior to the transfer/mutation of the same said property on to the name of the petitioner herein in the month of August, 2023' \\ 10

23. Further, a close scrutiny of cetificate of transfer/mutation as placed on record of this Court by the petitioner would show that in both the transfer/mutation of the subject property effected by the authorities, the name of the petitioner's mother is only reflected as transferor while on the authorities eFFecting transfer in the year 2022, the name of the 3d respondent should have been reflected as owner ofthe property.

24. Further, it is also interesting to note that though the petitioner claims the subject property under a registered Will Deed executed by her mother in the year 2010, the recitals of the aforesaid will Deed would show the petitioner's mother having bequeathed house bearing No.4-61 and 4-62 consisting of three rooms of RCC building with open place of 140 square yards in favour of the petitioner, while open place to an extent of 100 square yards being bequeathed in favour of grandson of the younger daughter. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim to be in possession of the entire extent of 366 square yards stated to have been possessed by her mother, including the house No.4-60, which property does not form part of the aforesaid Will Deed.

25. Since, the petitioner is claiming the subject propefi bearing No.4- 60 and 4-61 having been bequeathed in her favour by her mother and the 3'd respondent not having any right or tifle to claim the same on the basis of alleged settlement deed dt.09.04.2001 which has been validated on

04.08.2020 and the effect of such validation does not by itself confers the t I I I 1,1, status of a registered document as having been executed on the date except for being used as evidence, as noted hereinabove, even the said alleged Settlement Deed is also only in respect of house bearing No.4-61 and does not deal with house bearing No.4-60.

26. In the absence of neither the petitioner nor the 3'd respondent producing any document to claim ownership of house bearing No.4-60, it is surprising as to how the 2nd respondent authority has mutated the house bearing No.4-60 on to the name of the petitioner as well as the 3'd respondent in the year 2023 and 2022 respectively. It is further interesting to note that when the 2nd respondent by the written instructions having noted that the registered Will Deed under which the petitioner is claiming the subject property being only in respect of house bearing No.4-61 and 4-62, while the house bearing No.4-62 standing in the name of one G.Narsaiah, since long time, could not have affected the transfer/mutation, unless and until the aforesaid position has been clarified by the parties by adducing sufficient evidence.

27. Further, Section 104(3) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 read with Rules 6 and 7 of the Telangana Municipalities (Mutation of Property through Dharani Portal) Rules, 2020 requires the 2nd respondent to issue a notice directing the transferee or the person to whom the record of rights possessed to produce before him all documents, I '1 1,2 evidencing the transfer and upon issuance of such notice, the person to whom such notice is issued is required to produce the same.

28. However, in the facts of the present case, no such procedure appears to have been followed by the 2nd respondent authority, firsuy, while mutating the subject property on to the name of the 3d respondent in the year 2022 from the name of her mother late Jayamma or thereafter, on to the name of the petitioner again by showing the name of her mother as the transferor in the year 2023. Thus, the entire procedure adopted by the znd respondent authority in effect ng multiple transfers/mutation in respect of the same property not only smacks transparency, but also is a matter of concern as the same subject propefty is being transferred by showing the transferor as one and the same, and also by maintaining the same assessment number.

29. Since, this Court has now come to a conclusion that the transfer of the property, firstly, bearing No.4_60 be it in favour of the petitioner or that on to the 3'd respondent name cannot be claimed on the basis of either the registered Will Deed or validated Settlement Deed, the 2nd respondent authority is required to look into the same.

30. Insofar as the house bearing No.4_61 is concerned, while the petitioner is craiming the entire extent of the property as mentioned in the schedure of the registered wi, Deed, the recitals of the wi, deed show the 13 / petitioner's mother having bequeathed the three (3) rooms along with 140 square yards only, apart from 100 square yards being bequeathed in the name of her grandson, i.e. the son of petitioner's sister viz., 4b daughter of Jayalaxmi, the mutation of the entire house bearing No.4-61 on to the name of the petitioner in the year 2023 also appears to be contrary.

31. Since, the petitioner as well as the 3'd are claiming the subject property under registered Will Deed and the validated Settlement Deed alleged to have been executed by their mother respectively, the petitioner is required to get her right established to the subject property by approaching the competent Civil Court, since, the municipal authorities are denuded of the power to adjudicate title disputes.

32. Thus, this Court is of the view that the 2nd respondent authority is to be directed to examine all the above said issues though not strictly by considering the representation of the petitioner dt.12.04.2024, by issuing notice to both the petitioner as well as the 3'd and 4th respondents herein and shall take necessary action for effecting correction of entries in record of rights relating to immovable property as per the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act and the rules made thereunder.

33. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 't4 J'+. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// THA DEPI'TY REG TRAR SD/.V. SECTION FFICER To PS LS

1. The Principal Secretary, State Of Telangana, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Narsampet Municipality, Narsampet Town, Warangal Diskict.

3. One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to SRI M.RAM MOHAN REDDY, SC FOR MPCL [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI D.RAIVESH, Advocate IOPUCI 7. Two CD Copies K. 'f1- HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 I ORDER WP.No.12952 of 2024 \ \ '^. \\t\ ,l 1 I l.P rl 2[U5 ( i., ,.il DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS coq(qL \o Yt-,-, -1oh'il-