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 Mandamus declare the action of the Respondent No. 'l in not adhering to his own Memo vide Roc. No. A613222012011, dated 29.10.2011 and bent upon the fatse representations of the Respondent no. 2 and without insisted for order of competent court of law to decide the title of the property and cancelled the mutation granted in favour of the Petitioner vide Roc.No.A3/24565t2O13 dt.22.08.2013 under the c,olorable exercise of power illegat, arbitrary, malafide and violation of Article 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and also against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent no. 'l to restore the name of the petitioner in assessment register of the property of Warangal Municipal Corporation NO:'l Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased suspend ttre impugned order of cancellation of mutation in respect of the petitioner property vide Roc. No.A3 I 24565 I 20 1 3 dl. 22.08.2O 1 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MAMIDI VENU MADHAV Counselfor the RespondentNo. 1: SR! PASHAM MOHITH, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. M. T. GHORI The Cqurt rmade the following THEHON'BLT SRI 4 This writ petition is frled to declare ttre action of respondent No.l in not adhering to his Memo vide ROC No'A6l3222Ol2Oll' dated 2g.1o.2011 and in cancelling the mutation of pedtioner's name in the revenue records vide ROC'No'A3/2456512OL3' dated 22.O8.2OL3, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Artide 14' t6' 2l and 3OO-A of the C,onstitution of India' .t-

2. Heard Sri M.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pasham Mohith, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1. Though, Sri M.T.Ghori, frled vakalat on behalf of 2"4 respondent, there is no representation on behalf of 2"a respondent'

3.Brieflystated,thefactsofthecasearethatthepetitionerist}re owner of proper$r bearing Municipal No' 15-4-5, situated at Matwada' Warangal District, admeasuring 151'55 square yards (for short 'subject ProPertYJ, having purchased the same Smt'Kairunnisa Begum, vide registered sale deed No'7a8O/2O10, dated 3L'L2'2OLO; that the petitioner submitted an application for mutation of his name in tl.e municipal records and the same was considered and mutation was effected vide ROC.No.A612296/2O1 1, dated 28'01'2O11' While -the things stood thus, respondent No'2 filed objection pe!iqe-1 dated t.-/ 2 O5.O7.2O13 before the lst respondent stating that the vendor of the has e:rpired prior to execution of registered sare deed in favour oI ttre petitioner; and that the petitironer is craiming his tifle through fraudulent document. Basing on the objection filed by 2na respondent, respondent No.l issued impugned 22.Oa.2O 1.3 vide ROC.No.A3I24SGS/2OLI, advising both the parties to seek redressar from competent civil court since there is civil dispute, however ordered for restoration of name of the original owner SrrLt.Khairunnisa Begum. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Counsel for tlee petitioner would submit that tl e petitioner fired suit vide oS.No.g rz of 2or3 on the fire of V Additional Junior C:ivil Judge, Warangal and also obtained in-iunction in IA-No.731./2O13 vide order dated f6.Og.20l3. Learned Counsel would furtlier submit that in similar issue, earlier, respondent No. I vide Roc.No.A6/3222O/2O11, dated 2g.lO.2OtL, directed the parties therein to setfle tJre ownership title of the subject property before tl.e competent Civil Court. However, in the case of petitioner, although the lst re'pondent observed trrat the parties may seek redressal before t.Le competemt Court in view of the civil dispute, but, ordered for restoration of name of original owner Smt.Khairunnisa Begum, thus, resprlndent No. t has taken two contradictory stands on the 3 same issue, which is nothing but colourable exercise of Power' He also submits that the lst respondent having obserwed erat suits filed by both the parties are pendirrg, ought not to have restfred tlre name of vendor of the petitioner i.e. Smt.Khairunnisa BNgum, in the municipal records. He submits that against the comoiot Judgment I arrd Decree passed in OS.Nos. l74l2OL4 and OS.No.{ LT l2OL3, the petitioner herein filed appeal and the same is pendin! adjudication; and that tl:e appeal is continuation of the suit, thg claim of the petitioner has not been frnally adjudicated. He further submitted that as on the date of passing impugned order the pe$itioner was in possession and owner on the strength registered sale {eed, the impugned order passed by the lst respondent is therefore to be set

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for 1st res$Ondent would submit that the petitioner filed suit vide OS.No.8 L7 df 2OL3 on the tlrat the 2nd file of v Additional Junior civil Judge, warangal; respondent along with others fited suit in oS.No. L',l4 of 2oL4 to d.eclare them as owners of the subject propert5r and conseqr-Lential herein from permanent injunction restraining the petitioner interfering with the subject property; and that the. sufts filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 and others were clubbed tp, ttre PrinciPal together and a common Judgment has been passed ,r^ 4 District Judge, warangar at Hanuniakonda, d.ismissing the suit fitred by the petitioner herein and. decreeing the suit filed by t].e 2nd respondr:nt a,d others. In the said common Judgment, the registered sale deed vide document No.74go/2o1o, dated 3l.l2.2oto executed by the vend'or of the petitioner herein is declared. as null and void, as such, the relief sought for by the petitioner to restore the namr3 of the petitioner cannot be granted. He further submits that thotrgh, appeal preferred by the petitioner and tl.e sarne is pending, no stay of Judgment and Decree has been gra'ted in tLre appeal, a:ad fi.ally prayed to d,ismiss trre writ petition. 6' A p'erusal of the imptrgned order dated 22.og.2o13 discloses that the lst respondent has rightry observed that a civil dispute between the parties is pending before a competent civil court, and has advis'ed t].e parties to seek redressal in the pending suits. However, the lst respondent cornrnitted aR error in restoring the name of original owner smt.Khairunnisa Begum, since as on the date of pa.ssing impugned. order, the petitioner was hording a valid. registered sare deed in his favour. Therefore, the eontention of learned standing counser for lst respondent with regard to subsequent deve[opments of dismissal.of suit filed by the petitioner has no bearing ora the impugned order passed by the rst respondent. F\rrther, flre 1"t respondent has not recorded any Igqspn_Jhde_ \"/ \ 5 restoring ttre name of the vendor of tl e petitioner Sril-t.Khairunnisa Begum in the municipal records in respect of subject property.

7. In view of tl:e aforesaid discussion, the impugndd order dated

22.o,8.2013 passed by ttre l"t respondent is unsustairflable, liable to be set aside set and accordingly set aside. However, bptl, the parties are at liberty to approach the lst respondent by fili4g applications seekirrg mutation of their names in the revenue records. On such applications being filed, ttre l"t respondent is directed {o consider the said applications and pass orders, in accordance with law, by duly issuing notices and alfording an opporftrnity of heari{rg to both the parties.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Thene shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall starld closed. SD'. T IVAS REDDY REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY'I OFFICER To, : -7 -fltffiffiffi'+ildH,:"f :i',Iff::", i $ft EE H $i' S. fwo CD CoPies BM TKS Pc\q. HIGH COURT DATED:0810912025 ORDER WP.No.1252 of 2014 i-i?iaf.:l:t \ Co 2 4 JA}l 2O2E .-. -j * ,.1, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS s^q, q\r'{>,