IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23354 of 2008 Between: P. Damodar Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, R/o. Balasamudram, Hanumakonda Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Adilabad District. 2 The Director, Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Municipal Council, Mancherial Rep. by its Commissioner, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 4 Smt. P. Annapurna, W/o. late P. Mukanda Reddy, R/o. Mukanda Reddy Memorial Hospital, Near Gandhi Park, Mancherial, Adilabad 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in terms of Resolution No. 682 dated 6-10-2007 vide File No. 252/A1/2007 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of natural justice and consequently direct the oﬃcial respondents to act in terms of Resolution No. 682 dated 6-10-2007 vide File No. 252/A1/2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA, STANDING COUNSEL. The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by P.Damodar Reddy assailing the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in terms of Resolution No.682, dated 06.10.2007, vide File No.252/A1/2007. 2. The petitioner claims that Godown bearing Door No.6-3 (old) corresponding to new No.6-8 at Vegetable Market, Mancherial, Adilabad District is a joint family property. After the death of his brother, the 4th respondent, who is the wife of his brother, based on the Will dated 06.10.2001 submitted an application for necessary mutation of the property in her name. Questioning the mutation eﬀected in the name of the 4th respondent, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.6343 of 2004. Ultimately, the proceedings initiated by the petitioner ended with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon. The 3rd respondent considered the litigation between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and passed Resolution on 06.10.2001 whereby and whereunder the parties have been directed to approach the Civil Court to establish their rights. The said Resolution is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, Sri Polisetty Radhakrishna, learned Standing Counsel of Mancherial Municipality received notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 5. The factual aspect of the direction given in the earlier round of litigation to the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner is not in dispute. The 3rd respondent considered the representation of the petitioner and passed resolution directing the petitioner and 4th respondent to establish their rights before the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, the resolution passed by the 3rd respondent is just and proper and cannot be categorized as illegal and improper. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:12th November, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}