IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23704 of 2004 Between : K. Rama Goud, S/o. Sri Lakshma Goud,R/o. 2-1-17, Sangareddy, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sangareddy Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Situated at Sangareddy, Medak District. 2 K. Veeramala Goud, S/o. Sri Lakshma Goud, R/o. H.NO. 3-4-18, Opp. District Court, Near Telephone Exchange, Sangareddy, Medak District. .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not acting as per law in not mutating or deleting the name of the 2nd respondent in respect of the property No. 2-1-17/A and 3-2- 34/A situated at Sangareddy, Medak District so as to give effect to the partition decree passed in O.S.130/1993 by the Prl. First Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, Medak District thereby allotting the entire Municipal No. 2-1-17 and 3-2-34 to the petitioner herein and consequently direct the 1st respondent to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in respect of the petition schedule property may also be granted and to pass any other order or orders which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.1 in not effecting the entry of ownership in his name, in the Property Assessment Register, with regard to houses bearing Nos.2-1-17/A and 3-2-34/A, situated at Sangareddy, Medak District, by deleting the name of 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct respondent No.1 to mutate his name in the records. 2. One Late Sri Lakshma Goud was the owner and possessor of house and agricultural properties in Sangareddy of Medak District. He died, leaving behind four sons i.e. the petitioner, 2nd respondent and two others. After the death of Sri Lakshma Goud, the 2nd respondent and one other brother of the petitioner by name Sri Shiva Goud, were claiming exclusive rights with regard to house property bearing Nos.2-1-17 and 3-2-34, basing on a Will alleged to have been executed by their Late father. When the 2nd respondent and other brother were claiming exclusive rights with regard to houses referred above, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.130 of 1993 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, and sought for partition of the properties left behind by their father, mainly alleging that the Will set up by the 2nd respondent and the other brother, was fabricated. In the said suit, the 2nd respondent herein was figured as 2nd defendant. When the suit was pending, there was a compromise, and on filing the compromise memo, the suit was disposed of in terms of the said compromise memo filed by the parties. As per the compromise decree, dated 31.07.1998 passed in the suit, the houses bearing Nos.2-1-17 and 3-2-34 fell to the share of the petitioner. 3. Before the suit was decreed, the 2nd respondent and other brother Sri Shiva Goud got recorded their names as owners in the Property Assessment Register with regard to the houses bearing Nos. 2-1-17 and 3-2-34. After the suit is compromised, as per the decree dated 31.07.1998, the petitioner has made an application to record his name in the Property Assessment Register in respect of the aforesaid houses as owner, by deleting the name of the 2nd respondent. There is separate set of Rules relating to Transfer of Registry of Ownership of Properties in the Assessment Books of Municipalities, framed under the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965. Rule 4 of the said Rules provide for transfer of property based on a decree passed by a Civil Court. When the application was made initially by the petitioner, seeking transfer of property in his name, his claim was rejected by an order, dated 11.12.2001, on the ground that there were mistakes in the judgment and decree of the trial Court, and the decree was not registered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court earlier, by filing writ petition No.1727 of 2002, and this Court, by an order, dated 18.04.2002, while observing that there was no justification on the part of the Commissioner in raising such objections, directed him to take action as per the decree, dated 31.07.1998, passed in O.S.No.130 of 1993. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the name of the petitioner was recorded with regard to houses bearing Nos.2-1-17 and 3-2-34. But, however, after coming to know that there was sub-division of the said houses, which were allotted to the petitioner, he has also made an application for transfer of the houses bearing Nos. 2-1-17/A and 3-2-34/A also in his name. The said application was rejected by the impugned order, dated 27th August 2002, observing that the petitioner has to settle the issue in a Court of Law again. 4. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the said houses were sub-divided in view of the claim made by the 2nd respondent and the other brother, based on a Will, but however, when he has filed a suit, there was a compromise between him, the 2nd respondent and other brothers, whereby, the houses bearing Nos. 2-1-17 and 3-2-34 in entirety, have fallen to his share, as such, he is entitled for transfer of his name with regard to the houses bearing Nos.2-1-17/A and 3-2-34/A also. It is stated that pursuant to the compromise decree, he is already in possession of the said houses, and the house tax is also collected from him only. 5. On the other hand, it is the case of 2nd respondent that the original houses bearing Nos.2-1-17 and 3-2-34 were divided even prior to the passing of decree and as much as the houses bearing Nos. 2-1-17/A and 3-2-34/A were not subject matter of the decree passed in O.S.No.130 of 1993, the petitioner is not entitled to get transfer of said houses in his name. 6. A separate counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent/ Commissioner, stating that as per the compromise decree, houses bearing Nos. 2-1-17 and 3-2- 34 are mutated in the name of the petitioner by the then Commissioner vide proceedings, dated 31.05.2002. It is further stated that the other bifurcated houses bearing Nos. 2-1-17/A and 3-2-34/A are not reflected in the compromise decree, as such, petitioner is not entitled to get his name recorded in respect of those houses, by deleting the name of 2nd respondent. 7. I have seen the copy of plaint filed in O.S.No.130 of 1993, and the decree passed in the said suit. In the above said plaint filed in O.S.No.130 of 1993, the main allegation of the petitioner was that their Late Father has not executed any Will, and the Will set up by the 2nd respondent and the other brother Sri Shiva Goud, is a fabricated document. However, the matter was compromised, and based on the compromise memo filed by the parties, the suit was decreed. It is not in dispute that as per the compromise decree, the houses in entirety as stood earlier with house Nos. 2-1-17 and 3-2-34, fell to the share of the petitioner. The fact that the houses, which were subject matter of the Will set up by the respondents, have fallen to the share of the petitioner, indicate that the Will was not acted upon and the properties were shared as per the compromise entered into by the petitioner, respondent No.2 and the other brothers. The properties fell to the share of each brother were shown separately, and even in the compromise decree, in the schedule of properties, which fell to the share of 2nd respondent, there was no mention about houses bearing Nos. 2-1-17/A and 3-2-34/A. At the same time, the original houses as stood earlier in entirety with numbers 2- 1-17 and 3-2-34 were shown as they fell to the share of the petitioner herein. 8. In that view of the matter, the petitioner alone got exclusive rights for the houses in entirety, including the houses bearing Nos. 2-1-17/A and 3-2-34/A also. Having not brought to the notice of the Civil Court about bifurcation of houses into 2-1-17/A and 3-2-34/A, and when the houses with other numbers i.e. 2-1-17 and 3-2-34 fell to the share of the petitioner in entirety as per the compromise decree, the objections raised by the 2nd respondent for transfer of the name of the petitioner in the Assessment Register in respect of such bifurcated houses, is totally untenable and illegal. Asmuch as already there is a compromise with regard to the properties, there is no need to settle the issue once again by the Civil Court, as indicated in the impugned orders. It appears that the 2nd respondent, having claimed the property based on a Will alleged to have been executed by their Late father, and further, having filed a compromise memo in the suit, still he is trying to harass the petitioner by raising one objection or the other. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to get his name recorded in the Property Tax Assessment Register even in respect of the houses bearing Nos.2-1- 17/A and 3-2-34/A, situated in Sangareddy of Medak District. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with a direction to the 1st respondent/Commissioner to mutate the name of the petitioner in the Property Tax Assessment Register as owner with regard to houses bearing Nos.2-1- 17/A and 3-2-34/A, situated at Sangareddy, in the place of the 2nd respondent, and communicate about change of entries to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th June 2009 asp/ajr