HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.15913 & 22618 of 2011 Date : 8-9-2011 W.P.No.15913/2011 Between: D. Manohara @ Bujji .. Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri V. Vishwanatham Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Sri R. Radhakirshna Reddy, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No.4 : Smt. Pushpinder Kaur The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Since the parties and the subject matter are common, these Writ Petitions are heard and being disposed of together. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in W.P.No.15913/2011. The petitioner and respondent No.4 are natural sisters. A dispute between them has arisen in connection with property bearing No.10-3-282/2/A/12, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. While the petitioner claimed her succession through the alleged Will dated 6-12-1998 executed by the original owner Ms.Philomena Coelho, who died on 12-6-2003, respondent No.4 claimed her succession to the property through the alleged Will dated 3- 6-2003. The petitioner approached respondent No.3 with application dated 4-2-2011 for mutation of her name in the records of the respondent Nos.1 to 3-Municipal Corporation. Respondent No.4 submitted her application on 9-3-2011 for the same purpose. Respondent No.3, who has taken up the application of respondent No.4 at the first instance, issued proceedings bearing File No.13558/TC7/T9/GHMC/2011 dated 19-4-2011 mutating the name of respondent No.4 in the property Assessment Register under Section 208 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"). Obviously, on coming to know about the same, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 to recall the said order. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15913/2011 questioning the said proceedings of respondent No.3. On 14-7-2011, respondent No.3 passed an order whereunder respondent No.4 was informed that the order dated 19-4-2011 mutating her name in the Assessment Register, is kept in abeyance till the genuineness of the ownership is decided by the competent court of law. It was further directed that till then the previous owner’s name, namely, Kum.Philamino P., is revived in the records of the respondents-Corporation. Assailing this order, respondent No.4 filed W.P.No.22618/2011. I have heard Sri Viswanadham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC-respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Smt. Pushpinder Kaur representing respondent No.4. Rule 3 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Registry of the transfer of ownership of properties in the Assessment Book) Rules, 1965 deals with effecting changes in ownership of properties in the assessment books. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 envisages that in all cases of absolute transfer of title, the registry of properties may be altered to correspond with the transfer of ownership of such properties on a notice given to the Commissioner or any officer duly authorized by him in Form-I prescribed in Schedule-F to the Act by both the parties to the transfer to either of them. The said rule further envisages that where only one party to the transaction gives notice and the other, either objects to the registry of the transfer of ownership or does not take any steps, the transaction shall be evidenced by documents regarding genuineness of which the Commissioner shall satisfy himself before ordering the registry of transfer of ownership. It also contemplates objection, if any, filed by the parties to the applications filed for mutation. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 deals with transfers on account of succession. Under this sub-rule, the Commissioner or any other officer duly authorized by him, on production of evidence to his satisfaction, may order registry of transfer of ownership in every case where the property vests in a person either by succession or by inheritance or request or otherwise. The proviso to this sub- rule prescribed a limitation of one year for making an application in Form-I of Schedule-F to the Act by the person to whom the ownership of the property stand transferred from the date of vesting of the property in him. The facts noted above would show that there is a serious dispute regarding succession to the property mentioned above between the petitioner and respondent No.4. Both of them are claiming succession to the said property under their respective purported Wills executed by the original owner. In the face of such a dispute, it is well- nigh impossible for respondent Nos.1 to 3-Municipal Corporation or its officials to adjudicate on the testamentary succession and hold in favour of one of the two contesting parties because such an adjudicatory process can be undertaken only by the competent civil court. Therefore, respondent No.3, who has received the applications of the petitioner and respondent No.4 for mutation beyond the stipulated period of one year from the date of death of the owner, ought to have relegated the parties to the civil court in the first place. Instead, he has ignored the application filed by the petitioner which was already pending by the time respondent No.4 filed her application and initially passed an order on 19-4-2011 entering the name of respondent No.4 in the Assessment Register. Evidently, after receiving notice from this court in W.P.No.15913/2011 filed by the petitioner, respondent No.3 has tried to correct himself by keeping in abeyance the earlier proceedings issued in favour of respondent No.4 and reviving the name of the original owner who was already dead. In effect, respondent No.3, who sought to rectify a mistake, committed another mistake by reviving the name of the dead person in the Assessment Register. No explanation is forthcoming from respondent No.3 as to why he ignored the application of the petitioner for mutation of her name, in respect of the property in question, in the Assessment Register, which was earlier in point of time to that of respondent No.4. It is also not known why before keeping the order granted in favour of respondent No.4 in abeyance, a notice was not given to the latter. Thus, both the orders passed by respondent No.3 suffer from incurable legal errors. For the above mentioned reasons, both the impugned orders are set-aside. In the light of the peculiar facts of the case where the original owner is dead and there is a fight between two sisters, namely, the petitioner and respondent No.4, claiming under two different Wills, respondent No.3 is directed to keep the Assessment Register with respect to the property in dispute i.e., premises bearing No.10-3- 282/2/A/12, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad, blank, by indicating therein that the said property is in dispute. Even though the suit filed by the petitioner is stated to be pending, the same is evidently for permanent injunction. It is therefore necessary for one of the two parties, between the petitioner and respondent No.4, to file a declaratory suit before the competent civil court. Depending upon the result of the suit and subject to the further orders, if any, in the appeals that may be filed, the successful party may approach respondent No.3 for mutation. Till then, the petitioner and respondent No.4 shall pay the property tax with respect to the property in their respective occupation. However, such payment shall not be treated as recognition of the respective rights of the parties over the property till the dispute relating to the title to the said property is decided. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP No.19058/2011 in W.P.No.15913/2011 and WPMP No.27641/2011 in W.P.No.22618/2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 8-9-2011 AM