WP/21584/2014 of Boddu Sadanandam, S/o.Pocham, Vs State of Telangana, on 27 January 2026

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following reliet ". . .to issue a uit, order or direction more partitnlarlg one in the noture of Writ of Mondamus declaing the inaction on the petitioner application and representations dated 2O.04.2013 and 16.04.2014 on the part of respondents for recording his name in propertg change register connected the petitioner house bearing No.3-6 360 in the office records of the 2"d respondent and for mutation of hb name to thot effect, as illegal, irregular, inationol, uiolotiue of the prouisions of Hyderobad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and rules framed there under and offends Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequentLg direct the 2-d respondent to record. his name in all concerned registers connected to the petitioner house beaing No.3-6-360 in the ofJice records of 7d respon-dent and mutote his nome to that effect ond pass such other order or orders. ..'

\\? No ]1t81 20ll SCR.J

2. Heard Ms. P.D. Vineela, learned counsel Ic r the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Reddy, learned Standin 1 Counsel for Karimnagar Municipality, appearing for res rondent No.2. Perused the record

3. The brief facts of the case alleged by ttL, petitioner are that the petitioner is the absolute owner of hous e bearing No.3- 6-360 admeasuring 72.58 sq. yards in Sy.No 410 consisting of Tin Shed House situated in Subashnagar, li uimnagar City, Karimnagar District. It is contended that t re said house property was purchased from Smt. Gaini Kala <alakshmi uide registered sale deed dated 22.02.20 13 and :ince then, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyr:r:nt of the said property. It is also contended that the sa r vendor/Gaini Kanakalakshmi acquired an extent of 186.2 s1. yards in the said survey number under a registered Gift -r ettlement Deed dated 17.03.2005 from her husband Gaini Esvaraiah, who in turn purchased an extent of 242 sq. yards in .he said survey number from his vendor Rampal Lahoti un<1 :r a Registered Sale Deed dated 1l.12.lgal .) 4 . It is further case of the petitioner that bearing No.3-6-360 of Subashnagar, Karimnagar City is reflecting his vendor's narne as owner in the office records of the 2'a respondent, r,r,hich was mutated in the office records uide Proceedings in R.O.C.No.A2 /ZO4O/2OOZ dated

28. I2.2OO7, he has made applications dated 20.04.2013 and

16. O4.2OL4 along with relevant documents to the 2n,l respondent seeking for mutation of the above said property. However, respondent No.2 who is duty bound to examine the veracity of the same has neither considered the said applications nor passed any appropriate orders till date. Aggrieved by the said inaction, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contends that there is a civil dispute pending with the vendor of the petitioner and as such, the said property could not be mutated and seeks a short adjournment for filing a counter.

6. Evidently, the representations were filed by the petitioner way back on 2O.O4.2O13 ald 16.04.2014 ald the name of the vendor of the petitioner was also reflected in the municipal WP No _t1584 201,1 SCR-J as the house records vide Proceedings \W No 11584 101,1 in R.O.C.No.A2/7C, O/2OO7 dated 2a.12.2OO7, the respondent No.2 ought to havtr acted upon the application of the petitioner and passed the apJ ropriate orders and solely basing upon a dispute inter :;, between the petitioner's vendor and her son, the mutation r I the petitioner cannot be kept pending without there being z ny progress in processing the representations filed by the petit irner 7 . Be that as it may, as the representation i are filed long back and that by virtue of the proceedings o1 ,he respondent No.2, dated 28.I2.2OO7, the name of the pe- tioner's vendor was already recorded, the representations ougl t to have been considered by the respondent No.2, by pasr;.ng appropriate orders

8. In that view of the matter, the respondenl \,1o.2 is directed to consider the representations of the lr, titioner dated 22.12.2013 and 16.04.2014, by virtue of the < ocuments filed by the petitioner including the orders, if any, passed by the Competent Civil Court, in respect of the subj: :t property, for mutating name of the petitioner in the munic,l ,al records and pass appropriate orders within a period of four 'i,eeks from the ) WP No 21i84 2014 SCR.,] date of receipt of a copy of this order It is needless to say that the respondent No.2 is directed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under Municipality Act, 2Ol9 by affording due opportunities to the parties.

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER to ,l. ,n" Principal Secretary to Government'-Municipal Administration and Urban Development o"purtrnlni, -siii"i"r.iit' Saifabab' state of relangana at HYderabad.

2. The Commissroner, t\rlunicipal Corporation' Karimnagar Karimnagar City' Karimnagar District'

3. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT' High

- Court ror tre state oi ieiangana at Hyderlb-ad [oUT]

4. 6;; Cc 6 tr/s. P.D.vlNEEl-A, Advocate [oPlcl

5. one cc to sRl srorjrin-fr-i'HEDDi; Si FoR i<nRIMNAGAR

- llurutctpnllTY, Advocate (oPUC)

6. Two CD CoPies SA GJP

HIGH COURT DATED:2710112026 [' .IHT iIa z t -l

ORDER

WP.No.21584 of 2014 ,<+-.."]ii.* *-r.lrtri+ri+.F .! - _--+, -- ra,",- -nr-4sF*.'*.ra+!+-+4 D I S PO S I N G -O F-T+l E-l/ll;P @ WITHOUT COSTS. \? ? Lt, o () I tr/\- 'r{(: