The High Court · 2025

Petition Under section 15.1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to pass suitable orders in the nature of interim directions suspending the order dt. 5'11'2011 in Roc No A5/i328712011 regarding assessment No. 16-7-48 passed by the respondent pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners : M/s BANKATLAL MANDHANI Counset forthe Respondent: SRI pASHAM MOHITH The Court made the following ORDER n TIIE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B' VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10 267 0B 2012 ORDER: This writ Petition IS hled by the petitioner seeking the following relief: "...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other suitable Writ or writs by dcclaring the order passed by the respondent in ROC No.A5/13287/201 I dt 5-t 1-201 1 as illegat' arbitrary without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice and cffecting Right to l-ife ol thc petitioners and be pleased to pass suitable order in the nature of Direction directing the respondent to restore the assessment No'16-7-48 old number 16-7 -llll2 to the premises of the petitioners known as "sammaiah Hotel" Situated at Ol<l Grain Market road near to City Bus station, Warangal and be pleased to grant" '"

2. Heard Mr. Bankatlal Mandani' leamed counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Pasham Mohith' leamed standing counsel for the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (GWMC)' appearing for respondent, and perused the material on record'

3. The case of the petitioner is that the land along with hotel business bearing door No'16-7-101/2 (otd) and 16-7-48 (new) 2 situated at Old Grain Market Road near Cif Bus Station, Warangal, is ancestral property of the grandfather of the petitioners by name, Mr. Sankatala Sammaiah. The hotel business is popularly known "Sammaiah Hotel". The hotel business was operated by the grandfather of the petitioners by obtaining license from the respondent. The property tax was duly paid by the grandfather of the petitioners. Respondent issued license for running hotel in the year 1992-93, and the grandfather of the petitioners also paid non_ agricultural assessment tax for the years 1974 to 19g3, l9g3-g4 to 1995-96 and for subsequent years. It is submitted that the Tax officer of the respondent issued certificate dated 26.04.2004 staLing that as per the records house bearing Door No.l6-7_4g (new) and 16-7-10112 (old) stands in the name of Mr. Sankatala Sarnmaiah, grandfather of the petitioners. On 24.11.19g7, rhe Deputy Commissioner of Warangal Municipality issued ownership certificate stating that house bearing Door No. I 6_7_ I 0 1/2 (old) stands in the name of Mr. S. Sammaiah, grandfather of the petitioners, as per office records. E ,t $ I I I t I i I I l I I I * ! a i I I I f! 3 It is submitted that thereafter on the application of the father 4. of the petitioner No.l, the then Chairman of Municipal Council' Warangal. through Municipal Engineer sanctioned house service' tap connection as per the proceedings in ROC' No'E6/4508/85 dated 05.08.1985, and respondent issued property tax demand notice from time to time. Respondent assessed the property and fixed the half yearly property tax payable by the petitioners on 09'04'2010 as Rs.1,356/-. Subsequently, respondent through the Deputy Commissioner, issued a certificate bearing ROC'No'E/4/4683 1 /20 1 0 dated 09.04.2010 stating that as per the office records' the premises bearing Door No.l6-7-48 stands in the name of Mr' S' Sammaiah' grandfather of the Petitioners' It is submitted that when the respondent tried to interfere with 5. the possession of grandfather of the petitioners over the subject property, he filed a suit in O'S' No'165 of 1988 and O'S' No'187 of 1980 seeking perpetual injunction directing respondent not to interfere with his hotel business in the subject property' The suits were decreed on 18'11'1992 and 27'03'1981 respectively' That again on 26.12.2006, when the building inspector came and 4 threatened the petitioners, they filed W.p. No.36 of 2007 which was disposed of by this Court directing respondent not to interfere with the petitioners in relation to the subject properly.

6. lt is submitted thar the petitioners filed application requesring the respondent to bifurcate Door No.l6_7_4g as the ponion of the propefty fell to their share as per the partition effected between them. That. without conducting any enquiry and prior notice order dated 05.11.2011 was passed revoking the Door No.16_7_4g standing in the name of grandfather of the petitioners on the ground that the City Planner has reported that the grandfather of the petitioners has itlegally and unauthorizedly occupied the site covered in L.P. No.16/60 and constructed the shed unauthorizedly.

7. Leamed standing counsel for respondent filed counter affidavit and submitted that the physical inspection ol the subject property was done by the Town planning authorities and it was observed that there is a shed in the subject property. The plot of the respondent was illegally and unauthorizedly occupied by the grandfather of the petitioners and he constructed shed without taking 5 any permission from respondent' The subject property is part of approved layout plot vide TP No'31/60 issued by respondent' The petitioners did not have any valid documents to prove their ownership over the subject property' The petitioriers have failed to submit any source of title of their grandfather' The petitioners are taking undue advantage of the allotment of house number' collection of property tax, and claiming the subject property which is a public propefty. As it was leading to rnultipte litigations' house number allotted to the petitioners was cancelled'

8. In the reply to the counter affidavit' it is contended by the petitioners that impugned proceedings are issued without conducting any enquiry and prior notice. The contention of the respondent that subject property is a part of approved layotrt vide TP No'31/60 is totally false. The civil suits filed by the grandfather of the petitioners' were decreed and after fifty (50) years of continuous possession impugned proceedings have been issued' g. On perusal ofimpugned proceedings dated 05'01'2011 issued by the respondent, it appears that the petitioners submiued joint 6 application on the basis of registered partition deed bearing document No.l992 of 2010 along with death certificate of Mr. S. Sammaiah, grandfather of the petitioners, and other documents and requested to bifurcate the Door No.l6-7_4g as per the partition deed. The petitioners were asked to produce registered documents along with link documents to show that the property has been acquired by their grandfather, Mr. S. Sammaiah. In response, petitioner No.5 submitted reply stating that he acquired the subject property through registered partition deed and he has also enclosed photocopies of the judgment in O.S. No.l65 of lggg dated 18.11.1992 passed by the leamed II Additional District Munsif, Warangal. Respondent recorded that the petitioners have not I r led any sale deed or link documents and referred to the report of the City Planner, Warangal Municipal Corporation dated 10.06.201 I in which it is stated that property of the petitioners is covered in Lp No. l6160 of Old Grain Market, Laxmipura, Warangal, belonging to the Warangal Municipality, and Mr. S. Sammaiah itlegally and unauthorizedly occupied the plot and constructed the shed, I I r 7 recommended for revocation of assessment number i'e'' H.No.16-7-48. t0. The relevant portion of the impugned order is as under: "ln response to this ofhce notice, Sri Sankatala Sanjeev submitted his reply, stating that they got the property by way ofReg. Partition deed and it is an ancesstrol property and also enclosing a xerox copy of Hon'ble IInd Addt' Dist. Munisiff Court, Warangal in OS' No't65/1988' dated: 18-11-1992 without production ofany valid Regd' sale deed or link deed as called for vide reference 3'J cited. After careful examination of the said documents' the city planner, Warangal Municipal Corporation has reported vide reference 4th cited stating that the House Bearing Municipal No'16-7-48 is situated at Old Grain Market Road, Laxmipura, Warangal and it is covered in L.P. No.16-60 of Old Grain Market' Laxmipura approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning' A'P'' HyderabadwhichisbelongingtoWarangalMunicipality and found that Sri Sankatala Sammaiah has illegally and un-authorized occupied the Municipat PIot in the above layout and constructed the shed unauthorisedly and got assessed the same to property tax and recommended for revocation of assessment number i'e', H'No' 16-7-48' l I l I i ; I I 8 As the applicants are failed to produce their Regd. Documentary evidence in support except by producing Regd. Partition deed and Xerox copy of Hon,ble Court decree, despite issuing notice categorically, how Sri S. Sammaiah acquired the said property to substantiate their claim, and title and interest over the said properly. Therefore, it is hereby ordered to revoke the assessment No. 16-7-48, standing in the name of Sri S. Sammaiah from Municipal Corporation Assesment records with immediate, as he got assessment number by way of illegal means as per provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act." 1 l. It is the contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioners that decree in O.S. No. I 87 of 19g0 and O.S. No. 165 of l ggg has not been considered by the respondent and the decree is binding on the respondent. [f respondent intends to take action against the petitioners, appropriate action has to be initiated by foilowing due process of law or resorting to the civil law remedy. The impugned proceedings revoking Municipal assessment is without jurisdiction.

12. Leamed standing counsel for the GWMC submitted that building assessment is illegally obtained by the family members of 9 the petitioner, and there are no assessment proceedings' No document has been filed by the petitioners to prove their ownership. Assuming that assessment of the property was done and the property tax was paid by the petitioners along with electricity bills, water bills etc., it does not confer any title over the sub'iect property.

13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioners and the leamed standing counsel for the respondent - GWMC ' The petitioners have neither filedanydocumentsnordidtheypleadthatthepropertywas acquired by their father or grandfather through registered sale deed' It is also not stated as to how the petitioners are claiming that it is an ancestral property. There is no revenue record or Municipal record' The only contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner is that respondent has granted ownership certificate dated 24'11'1987 (under Ex.P7) and another certificate dated 26'04'2004 (under Ex.P6) stating that subject property was assessed for tax and the petitioners had been regularly paying the property tax and there are no affears. 1 I i I I i 10 a1

14. Whereas, respondent relied upon on the layout plan vide Tp No.3 l/60 filed along with counter affidavit. Though, it is stated that as per the layout plan, the subject property is a Municipal plot, there are no clear details regarding the description of the property. It is not stated whether the plot is an open space or park area.

15. Further, the petitioners also relied upon the judgments in O.S. No. 165 of 1988 dated IB.lt.tgg2 and O.S. No.l87 of 1980 dated 27.03.1981 . The judgments in the above two (2) cases reveal that there was dispute regarding ownership of the property since long time. The suit in O.S. No.lg7 of l9g0 was filed to restrain the respondent from evicting the petitioners from the subject property and causing damage to the said property. The suit in O.S. No.165 of 1988 was filed to declare the notice issued by respondent in I{OC. No.A13l2763188 dated,29.O2.l98g as null and void and not ro interfere with the possession or causing loss to the property by demolition. The above two (2) judgments were not considered by respondent in the impugned proceedings. . 11 I I I

16. In the opinion of this Court' the above judgments no doubt prove the possession of the petitioners over the subject property' they did not Prove absolute title over the ProPertY' Further, il it is the claim ofthe respondent that the subj ect property belong to them' they should have taken necessary steps to evict the petitioners from the subject property, however' they only issued impugned proceedings revoking the house number/assessment of the property'

17. ln view of the above observations' the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the order passed by respondent in ROC' No.A5/13287/2011 dated 05'11'2011' and the matter is remanded back to respondent. The petitioners are directed to submit reply to the show-cause notice dated 18'08'2010 within hfteen (15) days from the date of receipt of this order' On receipt of such reply' respondent shall pass orders in accordance with law' by affording opporlunity of hearing to the petitioners' within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. Pending enquiry pursuant to the show-cause notice, status quo, obtaining as on today' shall be maintained in respect of the subject property' Respondent is also at liberty to take necessary steps for recovery of possession of the subject property 12 from the petitioners, by following due process of law There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed /iTRUE COPY// SDi. A. JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR I I \ SECTION OFFICER Co mmissioner in Office, S.V.N. Road, Waran gal

1. The Commissroner, Waran gal lrilunicipal Corporat 2. One 3. One 4. Two CC to lt//s BANKATLAL |VANDHANT , Advocate [OPUC] CC to SRI PASHAI\4 IVOHTTH , Advo cate [OPUC] CD Copies I To SA cJP\r{_ I I I I i I I i L1- SIA{ (: a) |- i\ ) 23 st? t$6 ;:.1! ,. J HIGH COURT DATED:0610812025 ORDER WP.No.10267 ol 2012 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. c,!d'a 5*