IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4178 of 2008 Between: Sri Raja Vikrama Chandra Sanyasi Raju, S/o.Late N.Sanyasi Raju R/o.Fort Buildings Kota Veedhi Salur Vizianagarm Dist ..... PETITIONER AND The Saluru Municipality Saluru, Vizianagaram Dist rep.by its Commissioner .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not incorporating the name of the petitioner as owner in the properties ie, properties Door No.6-198(5-199) 5-214,6-197 (5-202),6-195(5-203) and 2-201,Kota Veedhi Salur Municipality and issuing property tax deemand notices in the name of saluru Jamindari, as bad, illegal and oppose to law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4178 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not incorporating the name of the petitioner as owner in respect of the properties bearing Door Nos.6-198 (5-199), 5-214, 6-197 (5-202), 6-195 (5-203) and 5-201, Kota Veedhi, Salur Municipality and in issuing property tax demand notices in the name of Saluru Jamindari, as illegal and arbitrary. The grievance of the petitioner, as contained in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, and as projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing, is that though in the family arrangement, the above mentioned properties fell to the share of the petitioner and he is making representations, the last of which is dated 23.02.2008, to the Commissioner of the respondent Municipality to mutate his name in the municipal records, the respondent has not been taking any action. Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the respondent to take a decision on the request made by the petitioner for mutation, in accordance with law. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondent to decide on the request of the petitioner for incorporation of his name in the municipal records, in respect of the above mentioned properties, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall give the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, before taking a decision, in accordance with law. Till the disposal of the petitioner’s request, no coercive steps for recovery of property tax shall be taken, and it is made clear that immediately thereafter, the respondent shall be free to recover property tax dues, if any, from the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 28.02.2008 Dsr Note: Issue copy in three days. B/o Dsr