THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.21577 of 2011 Dated 01st August, 2011 Between: Bheemshetty Naveen Kumar …Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, having its office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad rep.by its Commissioner and others …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Resu Mahender Reddy Counsel for respondent: Sri C.Damodar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside letter bearing No.1173/C5/Tax/Cir.18/GHMC/2010, dated 09.09.2010, of the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.18, GHMC, Secunderabad, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner for mutation of his name in respect of premises bearing No.1-8-50/G, P.G.Road, Secunderabad, in the records of the Corporation. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of 374 sq.yards of property situated in Krishnanagar Colony, Prendergast Road, Secunderabad, having purchased the same from one Ramesh Mukkawar and others, through registered sale deed, dated 10.08.2009. The petitioner approached respondent No.1 for mutation of his name in the records of the Corporation through letter, dated 05.10.2009. However, respondent No.2 got a legal notice issued on 29.01.2010, wherein it was stated that she has filed O.S.No.136 of 2009 before the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for partition of the property and that therefore, pending the said suit, respondent No.1 may not mutate the name of the petitioner. After obtaining legal opinion, the Deputy Commissioner of respondent No.1-Corporation passed the impugned order. After hearing Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the petitioner’s application by the Deputy Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality. Contrarily, the Deputy Commissioner has very rightly refrained from interfering with the civil dispute between two private parties over the property in question, as the competent civil Court is seized of such dispute raised in a properly constituted civil suit. Unless and until such dispute is settled, it is neither proper nor appropriate for the Corporation to mutate the name of the petitioner in the records of the Corporation. In the absence of any statutory mandate that the Corporation is bound to mutate the name even when there is a civil dispute pending with respect to the property, no mandamus can be issued to respondent No.1 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the records of the Corporation. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be free to approach the competent authority of respondent No.1- Corporation for mutation after disposal of the pending civil suit. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.26270 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st August, 2011 VGB