IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.15658 of 2011 Between: Smt. Syeda Atherunisa Begum. … Petitioner And Municipal Council/Municipality, Nirmal, Adilabad District, Reptd., by its Commissioner and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Karuna Sagar. Counsel for the respondents: Sri Pavan Kumar Aditya Malladi for Smt.Shanti Neelam,Standing Counsel for R.1. Sri A.Jagan for R.2 to R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside ownership certificate No.A.1/19/2003 dated 24-1- 2003 and certificate No.A1/7/2001 dated 25-1-2001 issued by respondent No.1. Disputes persist between the petitioner on one side and respondents 2 to 4 on the other relating to 33 square yards of land, which, according to the petitioner, forms part of the premises bearing Municipal No.7-3-33, 7-3-34 (New No.7-5-40). The mother of respondent Nos.2 to 4 approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nirmal, and obtained a house site patta on 31-3-1990 with respect to the said property. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, against the grant of the said patta. By order, dated 28-1- 2011, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, set aside the patta granted in favour of the mother of respondent Nos.2 to 4, who then filed Writ Petition No.12023 of 2011 questioning the said order. By order, dated 26-4- 2011, this Court in WPMP No.14687 of 2011 granted interim direction not to interfere with the possession of respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the above mentioned two certificates, which were relied upon by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in Writ Petition No.12023 of 2011. It is not out of context to note that respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed O.S.No.37 of 2011 in the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal, for declaration of title in respect of 33 square yards of land, which is shown to be forming part of House premises bearing No.7-3-34/1, and the said suit is pending. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counter- affidavits. Sri M.Karuna Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have obtained the purported ownership certificate dated 24-1- 2003 apart from certificate dated 25-1-2011, which were made basis for obtaining an interim order from this court. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has no power or authority to issue the ownership certificate. Sri A.Jagan, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4, submitted that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds, viz., (1) that the same suffers from laches as the ownership certificate was issued as far back as 24-1-2003; and that (2) the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 345 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short “the Act”). At the hearing, Sri Pavan Kumar Aditya Malladi, learned counsel representing Smt. Shanti Neelam, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that even though the provisions of the Act do not envisage issuance of ownership certificates, Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Development Control Rules, 2008 (for short “the Rules”) provides for issuance of occupancy certificate. He further submitted that the title of the certificate may be inappropriate; its contents would show that the property in question stands in the name of the mother of respondents 2 to 4. With respect to the power of respondent No.1 in issuing the ownership certificate, no provision is brought to the notice of this court by the learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1 that it has such a power to issue the ownership certificates. Rule 22 of the Rules, on which reliance is placed by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, envisages issuance of an occupancy certificate. The purpose of this certificate is to enable a person who intends to occupy or allow any other person to occupy any building or a part thereof for any purpose. Under this Rule, no person can occupy the building without obtaining such occupancy certificate. The contents of the two certificates, impugned in this Writ Petition, would show that they are not intended to be issued for the purpose of occupation of the property in question. Hence, they cannot be termed as occupancy certificates. Therefore, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 is denuded of the power to issue an ownership certificate. At best, these certificates would only reveal the name of the person in whose favour the property stands in the registers of respondent No.1. The relevancy of these certificates is confined only to this aspect and nothing further and these certificates cannot be treated as conferment of title or ownership on the person in whose name such certificates are issued. As regards the objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 regarding laches, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the ownership certificate, dated 24-1-2003, was issued by respondent No.1 behind her back and that she came to know about the issuance of such certificate only when the same was filed in Writ Petition No.12023 of 2011. This plea is not denied by any of the respondents. Hence, the question of the Writ Petition suffering from laches does not arise. As regards the objection relating to availability of alternative remedy, the law is well settled that the said rule is not an absolute bar and it is only a rule of convenience, but not a rule of law. Having regard to the nature of the dispute raised by the petitioner regarding the power of respondent No.1 to issue the ownership certificate, the appeal may not be efficacious. The question whether who, among the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4, is the owner of the property in dispute is already the subject matter of the suit filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4. As noted above, the Writ Petition filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is also pending in this Court. This apart, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are stated to have filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Adilabad District, against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer setting aside the patta granted by the Tahsildar. The parties are, therefore, entitled to pursue the above litigation notwithstanding the purported ownership certificate issued by respondent No.1. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the contents of the two impugned certificates, she can also move respondent No.1 for appropriate correction of the certificates. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.18764 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17-8-2011 MNR