WP/1558/2009 of Mohd. Abdul Jabbar, Vs The Municipal Counsel, Suryapet Municipality, on 23 January 2026

ORDER:

-Ihe prcsent writ Lretifiel-r has been filed, cleclaring the proceeclings of tl-re I't respondent dated 22.01 .2009, irt proceedings No.MCR No.749, along with the proceedings of the 2nd respondent ciated 18.10.2008 issued in proceedings No.41l2414 /2OOB, arbitrary, illegal, AS I

SCR,J WP.N1.1558 of 2009 contrarlr to rules, n,ithout application of min6 and also with a preiucliced mind to help the respondent Nos.3 to 5, and consequently sought a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to entertain any rnutation proceedings in respect <rf the disputed house bearing H.No.2-1 -170/2/3 along with open land comprising 546 square yards, situated at Aaravadi Veedi, Sur1,apg1, Nalgonda in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5, and also to restore the entries of the petitioners, in place of their late father in the assessment registers of the 2"d respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners' father Mohd. Moulana Saheb s/o. late Nabi Saheb, allegecl to have purchased the land to an extcnt of Ac.O.4|/z guntas equivalent to 546 square yards in Sy.No.773, situated in Suryapet Town and Municipality, Nalgonda District, under a registered sale deecl dated 23.17.7987, which was registered as document No.3661/1987 and it is also

SCR,-J W.P-No.1558 of 2009 contended by the writ petitioners that the said property was purchasecl by their father, and that during the lifetime of their father, thev have applieci for municipal sanction permission for construction of house and the 1st respondent had grantecl permission vide proceedings No.D/25/97-92 dated 17.05.1997, for cor-rstruction of a house and compound wal[, and due to paucity of funds, only four roorrrs were constructec{ alorrg with compouncl wall, and the total compounc-l wall was not corlstructecl around the total land, and they have been living in the said land. It is also contendecl that u.,lrile so, their father expired on 76.04.7996, leaving behincl thc petitioners, their rnother and also two sisters, ancl the saicl trvo sisters were married and have been living with their husbands, and that the petitioners have beerr in constant possession and enjoyment of the saicl house arrd along rt'ith the appurtenant land as on the date.

I

SCR, J W. P. No. 1 558 of 2009

3. It is also contenclecl that subsequent to the cleath of their father, both sisters and mother, lr,ho are also lraving equal share out of the saicl land, har,'e executecl registered Release Deed dated 76.10.2006, in their favor, which was rergisterecl as document No.4500/2006 and thus, the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors oi the said propertv admeasuring 546 square yards along with the house thereupon, and it is further stated that the responclent Nos.3 to 5 herein, who are the brothers of their late father, having cleveloped an evil eye to grab their house, and having managed the 2nd respondent, got the mutation proceedings bearing No.A1/2414/2006, dated 24.04.2006 in their favor bifurcating the house numbers as 2-7-770/2/3/ A to C, though there are no structures other tl-ran four rooms constructed try their father, more so, the petitioners are residing in the same house. It is contended that, the mutation proceedings were obtained by the

SCR) W-P,No.1558 of 2@9 respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein with the active collusion of the respondent No.2 an<l questionilg the said mutation proceeclings in favor of respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein dated 24.04.2006, the petitioner's mother alleged to have filed W.P.No.24370 of 2006 before this Court, which was allowed b1' this Court on 29.71 .2006 n,ith the following obscrvations: "Taking into consideration thc fact that ncither the petitioner nor other legal hc'irs of Mohd. Moulana Saheb has been put on noticc beforc effecting the mutation proceedings, the impugned mutation proceeclings arc hereby sct aside, and the mattcr is remitted to the first respontlent to put all the parties said to bc interested in thc property in qucstion and make appropriate orders in relation thercto at an early date,"

4. It is contended that while so, basing on the rnutation proceecl ings issued in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the 5th respondent had applied for perrnission and the sarne was grantcd on 08.11.2006 by the 2"d respondent ar-rd the application of the petitioners for

I

SCR,] W.P.N1.1558 of 2009 grant ()f permission was kept pending. Further, they have fileci a r,r,rit petition in W.P.No.17767 of 2O0B challenging the grant of permission to the respondent tl-ris Court. [t is contende'd that after the orders passed by tl-ris Hon'ble Court, dated 29.11.2006 in W.P.No.24370 of 2006. 'l'tre 2,'d responclent had issued notices to the petitioners along with the respondent Nos.3 to 5 hereirr .r n cl conse'quently, issued proceedings N o. A1 / 2414 / 2005 dated 01 .03.2007 setting aside the mutation proceedings issr-red in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 and the ccrrsequerrtial prl66sgclings bearing No. A1. / 247 4 / 2005, clirtccl 09.08 .2007 was also issued deleting the narnes of rcsponclent Nos.3 to 5 herein by restoring the narne of tl-rt:ir latt: father in the revenue records. It is contended that the s;-ricl proceedings have become final as they were not questioned subsequently.

Nos.3 to 5 herein, which is pending adjudication beforc scR) W.P.N1.155B of 2009

5. Further, it is also corrtendecl that while so, the person working as Commissioner of the 2'd respondent Municipality was transferred and the present incumbent hacl took the charge and the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein have started their efforts once again, and under the influence of the respondcnt Nos.3 to 5, the 2nd respondent allegecl to have reope necl thci r case for hearing, and issued notices, ancl thereupon, the 2nd rcspondent after conducting an inquiry, has passed orders once again by conducting enquiry vide proceedings No.A7/241412008 datecl 18.10.2008. It is contended that assailing the sarne, the petitioners filed the W.P.No.233B1 of 2008 before this Court and this Court after considering the facts on record, as there is alternative appeal provicled for the writ petitioners to challenge the order dated 18.10.2008 under Rule 7 of the A.l'. Municipalities (Alternation of Ownership of (

SCR,] W.P.No.1558 of 2009 Prope r ty I l-l Assessmerrt Books) Rules, 1966, this Court releg.-rtecl the petitioners to file ar-r appeal before the Council i.c., I'r respondent against the orders dated 18.10.2008 passed by the 2"d respondent and subsequently, it is contended that writ petitioners have filccl Appcarl bciore the 1't respondent and the 1.t respondent reiterating the same has rejected the said Appeal rvithout valid reasons and as such, the present writ petition is iiled before this Court questioning the orders of the 1.t respondent

6. '[-he l'asic contcntion of the writ petitioners is that, when tl.rc. mutation proceedings dated 24.O4.2006 in favour oi resprorrdent Nos.3 to 5 were granted, W.P.No.2437O of 2O06 was filed before this Court and this Court by setting aside the orders of mutation procecdinlls datcd 24.04.2006, directed the 2"d responderrt to concluct a fresh enquiry and in pursuance B

SCR,) W.P.N1.1558 of 2009 of the same, the 2nd respondent has already heard the matter and consequently, orders were also passed and while so, the new Cornmissioner, who took the charge of the Office of the 2",1 respondent, cannot revierru its own orders by reopening the case and as such, though the Appeal has been filed, it has not been properly adjuclicated by the 1't respondcrrt. It is contencled that the 2"d rcspon,Jent has no jurisdiction to alter to their own orciers.

7. Per contm, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein have iiled counter-affidavit contending that there were suits and counter suits filed by the writ petitioncrs ancl also the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein and that in fact, after passirlg of the orders by this Court, remitting the matter back to the 2"d respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry in W.P.No.2437O of 2006. The 2"d respondent has only intimated the order passed by this Court in scR,l

W.['].No.2,1370 of 2006 datecl 29.11.2006 ancl that consequential orrlc.rs are only passed setting aside the mutation proceedirrgs in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 ttide orcler c{artccl 09.08.2007, but, however, no fresh enquiry was conductecl as per the orders of this Court in W.1'].No.24370 oi 2006 dated 29.71..2006 and subsequently, the iresh enquiry was conducted by the Comrnissioner ancl after proper enquiry, mutation proceeclinl;s werc rr)storer.:l ir-r favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and as such, the 1.t respondent also, on appeal by the writ petitioner, h.rs dismissed the Appeal of the writ petitioner, ars no valicl grouncls are produced.

8. Flearci Mr. I'. 1'. Acharya, Iearned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.R. Vishnu Murthy, learned counsel representini3 Mr. I)utta Krishna Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for Mur-rit:i1-ralities for respondent Nos.1 & 2, and Mr. Abhinav Krishna Uppaluri, learned counsel sc&) W. P.No. 1558 of 2@9

representing Mr. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

9. 'I'he basic contention ol the petitioners IS that, by virtue of order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 01 .03.2007 in proceedings No.A7/2414/2005 and consequential order dated 09.08.2007 in Proceedings No.A2/2414/2005, the case of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 w,crc already considered pursuant to the order passed by tlris Court in W.P.No.24370 t>f 2006 dated 29.77.2006 and onr:e again, the very same Commissioner cannot conduct a reviert, oi the earlier order. Evidently as seen from the orclers of this Court in W.P.No.24370 of 2006, dated 29.11 .2006, this Court while setting aside the mutation procec.clings issued in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 5, c{irt-ctecl the 2"d respondent to conduct a enquiry afresh and pass appropriate orders by giving due notice to the re-spective parties. The orders in proceedings No.A7/2774/ I

'CR,J W. P. No. I 558 of 2009

2005, datecl 01.03.2007, tire orclers of this Court in W.P.No.24370 of 2006, datecl 29.17.2006 have been intimated to the parties, but no iresh enquiry is conducted as pcr ther clirectior-rs of this Court in the aforesaid writ petiLion. For better u nclerstarrding of the case, the proceedings of thc 2"d rc.sponclent dated 0'1,.03.2007 are hereby extracted. "'fhe Hon'ble High Court of A.P., in their Writ Petition No.24370 / 2OO6 datcd 24.04.2006 have set aside the mutation of property of H.No.2-1-170/2/3 rnade by the Commissioner, Suryapet Municipality and issued orders accordingly to takc action within four weeks from the datc o[ reccil-rt of thc said Hon'ble High Court orders. Consequcnt on the basis of . thc Hon'ble High Court crrders, mutation proccedings No.A7/2414/ 2006, dated 24.04.2006 of p211 66 H.No.2-1-170/ 2/ 3 i.e., H.No.2-1-17ul2/3/A, H.No.2-L-17O/2/3/8, and H.l'Jo.2-1-17O / 2/ 3/ C are hereby set aside."

10. That the very wording of the said order dated 07.03.2007 onlv would reveal that consequent upon the -) SCR,] W.P.No.155a of 2009 orders of this Court, the mutation proceedings were set asicle, but, however, the order do not indicate as to conducting of an1, enquiry b), th. 2"d respondent and perusal of the cor.rsequential order dated 09.08.2007, consequent upon setting aside the assessment order of this Court, the assessment orcler granted in favour of responcicnt Nos.3 to 5 was cancelled, but, however, no fresh enquiry was cont-lucterf by the 2nd responclent after cancellatiorr of the saicl assessment order by virtue of the orders passed irr W.P.No.24370 of 2006 dated 29.17.2006. Pursuant thereto, thc. 2nd respondent in pursuance of the orders in \V.P.no.2437O of 2006, dated 29.77.2006 has taken up the enquirl, antl issued notice dated 16.07.2008 to the writ petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 and the orders \,\,e re passed by the 2ncl respondent ltl proceedings No.A1 /2414l2008 clatecl 18.10.2008. It is evident that the 2nd responclent has not reviewed the orders, but has conducted I

I scR,l W. P. No. I 558 of 2009 l4 frcsh enquiry in pursuance oi the directions of this Court irr W.P.No.24370 of 2006, dated 29.11.2006. 'thus, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent has either exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the irnpugned proceedings dated 18.10.2008, nor c1o the said proceedings amoLrnt to a review of the orrlc.r datect 01.03.2007. 1 1 . Further, as the A p;real \^ras f ilccl before the 1.t responder-rt, who after due enquiry has found that no valid reasons are made out by the writ petitioners to interdict the order dated 18.10.2008. 1.he petitioners have not made out any valid grour-rds for intcrference and have not substantiallv proved that the impugned proceedings are bad in law arrcl untc-,nable. r\s the u,rit peLitioners contendeci that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have no right over the subject property, they ought to have filed declaration suit for reclressal of their grievance and it is settled lau, that this Court cannot decide title issue in writ

\ To, TJ , sc&l W 2 flo. 1 558 of 2009

petition and if the writ petitioners desire so, they may file appropriate suits for reclressal of thcir grievance.

72. In such view of thc matter, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the s.rme is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the Writ l)etition is hereby dismissed. 'fhcre shall be o or,.lcr as to costs. Miscellaneous applic311o.s if any pending shall stand closecl. SD/. C. DEEPIKA SISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to Sri T. P. Acharya, Advocate IOPUC]

2. One CC to Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, SC for Municipalities[OPuc]

3. One CC to Sri P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate IOPUC]

4. Two CD Copies ( \'

HIGH COURT DATED:2310112026 o

.t .fHE S 021,r 2026 O..

ORDER

WP.No.1558 of 2009 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS * I I @