THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.8026 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of premises bearing No.2-4-72/3/1 (Plot No.3) admeasuring 305 sq.yards situated in Survey No.22/E of Sogbowli Village (presently known as Fort View Colony), Upparpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 26.11.2004. She states that after verifying the documents and conducting enquiry, mutation proceedings were issued in her favour vide proceedings, dated 03.05.2005, in respect of the subject property and since then, she claims to be in continuous possession of the same. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioner that at the instance of one Smt.S.Nagamani, the respondent, namely, the Commissioner, Rajendranagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, issued the impugned proceedings, dated 10.04.2006, cancelling the mutation proceedings issued in her favour on 03.05.2005, without issuing any notice to her. Aggrieved by the same, she filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though it appears from the impugned order that it is passed based on a petition purported to have been filed by one Smt.S.Nagamani, there is no mention about the residential particulars of said Smt.S.Nagamani in the impugned order nor the copy of the same was marked to her complete residential address and therefore, the petitioner could not make her as a party to the writ petition. Though this Court issued Rule nisi in the matter way back on 21.04.2006, so far no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. However, at the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipality has fairly conceded that the impugned proceedings were issued without issuing any notice to the petitioner and that the particulars of residential address of Smt.S.Nagamani were not mentioned in the impugned order. In view of the conceding statement made by the learned Standing Counsel, the impugned order, which is passed without issuing notice to the petitioner, is liable to be aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings and granting liberty to the respondent- Municipality to issue notice to both the parties and pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with law. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:23.06.2010 VGB