IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12820 of 2005 BETWEEN: T. Girija Kumari, W/o. Late Sri T. Venkata Narasimharao ... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Anakapalli Municipality, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District and another ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12820 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to mutate the name of the petitioner in the municipal records in respect of her house property bearing D.No.4-10-41/1, Gandhi Nagar, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, as she being the absolute owner and possessor of the same consequent to the decree passed by the civil Court. It appears the husband of the petitioner, late Sri T. Venkata Narasimharao, worked as a Medical Officer in Anakapalli Municipality – respondent No.1 and retired in the year 1987. While in service, he was allotted with a house bearing D.No.4- 10-41/1 under hire purchase scheme. According to the petitioner, even before the death of her husband i.e., on 13.02.1993, he had cleared all the hire purchase installments due to the Municipality. However, since a dispute had arisen, he filed a suit in O.S. No.26 of 1991 before the Court of Principal District Munsif, Anakapalli and the same was decreed on 06.08.1992, declaring him as owner of the said property and also granted permanent injunction. But, after death of her husband, respondent No.1 is deducting an amount of Rs.290/- towards hire purchase charges from the family pension paid to her. Therefore, the petitioner also filed O.S. No.265 of 1995 for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,440/- from respondent No.1, being the amount collected from the family pension paid to her towards hire purchase charges and for permanent injunction restraining respondent No.1 from deducting any amount from her pension and to mutate her name in the municipal records against the said property. The suit was partly decreed on 08.11.2001, directing the Municipality to mutate the name of the petitioner in the records against the house property bearing D.No.4-10- 41/1, Gandhi Nagar, Anakapalli and not to deduct any amount from her family pension towards hire purchase charges. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of there being such civil Court decree in her favour, which attained finality, the respondents are not mutating her name in the municipal records against the said house property. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard relied upon Rule 5 of Alteration of Ownership of Property in Assessment Books Rules, 1966 and stated that as per the above Rule, the Municipality is bound to mutate the name of the petitioner in the records for the said property, since she has obtained a valid decree in respect of the said property from the competent civil Court where the Municipality is also a party to it. In view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that once Anakapalli Municipality – respondent No.1 is a party to the decree in O.S. No.265 of 1995, dated 08.11.2001, the decree passed by the civil Court is binding on them and they shall implement the same by mutating name of the petitioner in the records against the house property bearing D.No.4-10-41/1, Gandhi Nagar, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed directing respondent No.1 to comply with the decree passed by the civil Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ C.V. RAMULU, J January 21, 2010 MD