IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 34966 of 1998 Between: Smt. Mutyala Poleswari Ramalakshmi alias Papa, W/o Late N. Saryanarayana, R/o Upstairs Portion No. :1-8-631/1, Prakashamnagar, Begumpet, Secunderabad-16. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 2 Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, W/o Late Sri M. Nageswararao, R/o H.No. 98/2RT, Prakashamnagar, Begumpet, Secunderbad-16. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in No. 4325/C5/Tax/SD/96 dt:4.3.1996 of the 1st Respondent herein as illegal, inoperative, and without jurisdiction besides being opposed to principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.B.SOMASEKHAR FOR The Court made the following : ORDER: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was no more and therefore notice sent to the petitioner was returned with an endorsement ‘ addressee left’. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that one M.Nageswara Rao is the original owner of the property bearing H.No.1-8-631/1, Prakasham nagar, Secunderabad, and his wife is the 2nd respondent herein. Petitioner’s husband-late M.Satyanarayana is the son of the said Nageswara Rao. It is stated that the petitioner’s husband died on 22-10-1992 and the father-in-law of the petitioner died on 26-01-1983. It is stated that during the life time of the said Nageswara Rao there was a family arrangement according to which petitioner and her husband were authorized to construct the first floor over the said premises of A.P.H.B. House No.98/2 RT and the upstair portion was constructed by the petitioner and let out to their tenant, and the same was assigned municipal No.1-8-631/1, Prakasham nagar, Secunderabad. It is stated that there was some dispute with regard to the ownership relating to eviction of the tenant and on a complaint made by the 2nd respondent with regard to the mutation of the name in the municipal records in favour of the petitioner, the mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioner were cancelled by the impugned letter, dated 04-03-1986. To declare the said impugned letter of the 1st respondent as illegal this Writ Petition has been filed. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition by order, dated 22-06-1999, made the following order: “The Writ Petition is filed questioning the order, dated 04-03-1996, passed by the 1st respondent canceling the mutation in respect of the property bearing H.No.1-8-631/1, Prakashnagar, Secunderabad and retaining the name of Sri M.Nageswar Rao, who is none other than the petitioner’s father-in-law. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the family arrangement of 1983, this house fell to the share of the petitioner and she has been residing therein since 1983. However, due to differences between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law the mother-in-law initiated Rent Control proceedings against the tenant in the first floor and when the tenant disputed the ownership of mother-in-law, the Rent Controller dismissed the Rent Control Case. It is further alleged that thereafter the 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent and got the mutation in favour of the petitioner cancelled. However, no notice was given to the petitioner. Prima facie I feel that the impugned order is unsustainable. Therefore, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for. This does not preclude the Rent Control Court to adjudicate upon any issue based on the change in the mutation”. 3. As admittedly no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the said impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order keeping it open for the 1st respondent to issue notice to the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 04th March, 2008 Tsy To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR}