The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly, one in the Nature of writ of lt4andamus declaring the rnaction of the respondent No. 3 in not considering representations of the Petitioner for not mutating the writ - {c$ed uled-preBe 4r-on-the--name-oF{es po nd e n t No. 4, as -illega l,--arbitra unwarranted and violative of Articles'14, 19 and 21 0f the constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondent No. 3 to cancel the mutation proceedings issued on the name of respondent No.4 on the writ scheduled property in the interest of justlce --- lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition, the High Court may be pleased to drrect the responcent No 3lo cancel the mutation proceedings issued in favor of respondent No 3 as the impugned mutation proceedings are bad in the eye of law, pending disposal of th{r above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SHAIKH CHAND AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3: SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER, Counsel for the Respondent No.4:-- The Court made the following: ORDER SC FOR GHMC HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33511OF 202s ORDER (oRAL) 'l his writ petition is filcd by the petitioner secking to clcclarc thc inaction ot' respondent No.-3 in consideling her represcrrtution tirr nrutation of her narne in rcspect ol the ploperty bcaLing tl.\o.19-290. adrreasuring 320 squarc yards, situated at \rallabhar Par.'l Naqar'. Ga.lulararnararn, Quthbullapur Manda[, Medchal-N,{atkajgiri I)istrict. as bcin-q illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutional 2 Ileard Mr. Shaik Chand Ahmed, learned counscl lbl thc petitioncr. Ivlr. K.Ravi Mahendcr, learned Standing Counscl for CHMC, appc:aring Ibr respondents No.2 and 3; and peruscd the material on r-ccorcl

3. The case of the petitioner is that her tither trl nanrc N,[r. Kandukuri Narsirnha (late) was the original o',r'ner ol thc plopefl\ bcaring I{.No. l9-290, adrneasuring 320 scluare 1aruls. situatcd at Vallabhai Patel Nagar, Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur N4andal, Medchal- Matkajgiri District. Out ol such extent, the father of the pctitioner sotd 100 square yards to one Mr. Md.Abid and continued to be in possession of the remaining land admeasuring 220 square yards. That Mr. Kandukuri Raju (late), the brother of the petitioncr, rramied / --/ 2 resp(m(lcnt \o.-lt thc ntarriage \\'as uor to thc Iiking ol' thc farnily nrcrlScrs anrl oplrrrserl I,r thc thther'. Respondent \o.4 and her husband hacl hctn rc: i cl irt q scplr-ntclv au ar liom tlrc lantill ol the pctitioner \\'hilc 'o. \1r. K.llqLr thc:Lrbicct l)r()p.rtv r-r.rlcr (i.O.\1s. Nos.58 and 59 arrcl patta *as issucd Lrlrrrs hi: litctirnc, itpplied tirr- re,tularization of in his nunie ri hrch u as n()r t() tllc kno'u'ledge of the petitioner and other lhrnilr nrcnrbcrs irrcluclinu thcir parents. It is subrnitted that thc rnothcr of tlrc pet iticr rrcr crltilcci t l() 1 li: tlrc brothe r ol the petitioncr cxpired on 0l .06.1()l I rrntl rhc fallrcr ol' thc pctitrnner. cxpircd on 2l l0 202j tL is firrtlre' srrbnrittcd that ,licr crpiry ol brothcr and fathel ol the petitioncr, respr)nde nt i'r"..-1 hus lllcrl cir iI suit in o.S. ..,-o- 17 ol 2024 belore the ci'iI Cour-t in N{crlc[al -julisrliction and obtaincd exparte decr.ce based which slre qot thc slrl)icct propcfty ututated in hel. I-avour.. That on cominq kno* about tlrc sa.rc, thc petitioncr submitted representation i0. ll.l0l+ to fhc r-cspplrlcpt autl-rorities not to cpteftain any such mutation. but so thr the sarne is not being acted upon. 1'he petitioner also sought ttr qer inlbn)rati(). and regarding the nrutation, if any, issued in the of respondent No.4 under the Right ro Information Act, 2005 but no intbrlration u'as firrrrishcd to the petitioner. J

4. I-earned counscl submitted that on representation submitted by the pctitiorrer. respondent No.2 issucd notice No.l5l4lTaxlC-26 KP7. GIIMCi2025 datcd 0(r.08.2024 to thc pctitioner and responclent No.4 aucl orr rcccipt ol'the saLnc. thc pctitioncr r isited tlrc oftlce o1'responclcut No.l and Iodged his grierar.rce. Subscqucntly, tinal noticc datecl l8 08.2025 rras issued: the pctitioner attended the hearin_e but so l-ar, llnal ordcrs have not bccn passed

5. Lcarned Standing Counsel tbr GI{MC. basinq on thc t'ritten instructions. submittecl that on replesentation of the petitioncr. cnquirr, rvas conducted and opporlunity of hearing was givcn to the petitioner aud rcspondent No.4 on 12.08.2025 and 22.08.2025. During the hcaling, the petitioner has not subn-ritted any documents to the respondcnt Corporation and thc lepresentation of the petitioner was rejccted on

09.09.2025. Further', it is stated that the subject matter pertaiLis Lo cilil dispute betrveen the petitioner and respondent No.4 and respondent No.3 has issued rnutation proceedings in lavour of respondent No.4 based on prima facie title and documents submitted by her

6. Taking note of the contentions of the leamed Standing Counsel for G[{MC that opporlunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and - I fesp()ndellI No.]. Lhe re l)resen ta t i0r1 0l- thc petitioner was rejected and lurthcr tlrc pctitiorcr did not srb,it anr docume ,ts and r,oreor cr. tltere rt il (lecrct 1.rus:;crl itr tlrc cir il Courl rn tavour rtf responrlent No.4. llris ( Lrurl rs n!l inelincii t() elttcrtlrill this rrrit pctition I . .\ccolclin.tl,,, tltis u rit pcf itrrtn is disrtrissed. Resltontlent No.3 shall col1,',urrcatc c()p' of trre orde'proceedi,gs ri, rrcreby thc rcprcscntation .l'tlrc pe tilioncr has bcen rc.lccteci u'itirin a period of tive (5) dais tio.r tlrc clatc ot rcccipt .r'a cop'.r'this ordcr. Thc pctitioner is gi'cn libcr-tr t() rrstirrtc il separatc suit or challcrge the exparlee decree passetl in lar orir ol resl.rondcnt Nrr.J. Subjcct to the outcomc of such litigati.n. thc pctitrorc' is gi'en liberty to ap;rroach r-espo,dcnts No.2 ard i anrl scck lbr .l.iatio. rrt' the subjcct propcrty i, hcr favo,r. l-here shall he no ordcr as ro c()sts. ,\s a seqLrcl thcr.eto. niiscellaueous applications, if anir, pending in this u rit pctition. stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/-L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i-:t' SECTION OFFICER To, o

1. One CC to SRl. SHAIKH CHAND AHMED, Advocate tOpUCI 2. Two CCs to GP FoR IVIUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIoNAND ORBAN ^ DEVELOPIVENT ,l-1igh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRt K RAV| TUAHENDER, SC FOR GFIVC toptjcl 4. Two CD Copies BtV BS HIGH COURT DATED:0611112025 ORDER WP.No.33511 of 2025 1 HE STATt Ox: o 1 $ trrq ttTtt Jr t

4.i,\ +-' - DISMIS-S]IIG THE WRIT_PETITION WITHOUT COSIS