IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.21861 of 2011 Between: M.Siva Prasad. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.C.D.Sekhar for Sri P.Venugopal Counsel for the respondents: Sri C.Damodar Reddy for R.5. None for R.1 to R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.2849/TPS/C- 18/NZ/GHMC/B5/2009/142, dated 30-10-2010 of respondent No.5 in respect of the petitioner’s property, i.e., 118.33 square yards, comprised in T.S.No.3, Block No.D, Ward No.101 of Bholakpur village, Secunderabad Mandal, Secunderabad. I have heard Sri T.C.D. Sekhar, learned counsel representing Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5. The petitioner’s father approached respondent No.1 for regularization of his possession of the above mentioned property in terms of G.O.Ms.No.508, Revenue (Assignments-I) Department, dated 20-10- 1995 and G.O.Ms.No.1601, Revenue (Assignments-I) Department, dated 29-8-2005. Respondent No.2, who is District Collector, Hyderabad, issued proceedings bearing No.R2/10755/2008, dated 4-8-2009, regularizing the possession of the property on payment of market value for 38.33 square yards while giving 80 square yards free of cost. The petitioner’s father has deposited the sum of Rs.8,50,860/- through challan bearing No.144579, dated 21-8-2009. On receipt of the said amount, proceedings No.R2/10755/2008, dated 26-8-2009, was issued, wherein the District Revenue Officer was directed to execute the conveyance deed on behalf of the Collector, Hyderabad. Accordingly, a deed of conveyance was executed in favour of the petitioner’s father on 5-9-2009. The petitioner’s father made an application on 23-9-2009 to respondent No.5 for permission to construct a building on the property conveyed to him. The petitioner’s father died on 8-5- 2011. Before his death, impugned communication, dated 30-10-2010, was issued to the petitioner’s father, wherein the Commissioner of respondent No.5 informed respondent No.2 that the former has taken a decision for cancellation of the deed of conveyance executed in favour of the petitioner’s father. He has requested respondent No.2 to hand over the property admeasuring 118.33 square yards as the same is shown as ‘M’ land in TSLR. The Commissioner also referred to his earlier letter, dated 2-6-2010, wherein he has instructed respondent No.2 to cancel the deed of conveyance and hand over physical possession of the land to him. The Commissioner has reiterated the said request in the impugned letter. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of any of the respondents. In my opinion, the impugned letter cannot be sustained for the reason that already respondent No.1 has regularized the possession of the petitioner’s father and a registered conveyance deed was executed on its behalf after receiving consideration from the petitioner’s father. So long as the said document continues to be in force, the title stands vested in the purchaser. As the purchaser has died, the petitioner, being his son, evidently succeeded to the property. The context in which the impugned proceedings were issued by the Commissioner of respondent No.5-Corporation is that when the petitioner’s father has applied for sanction of building plan, the Commissioner appeared to have noticed that the entry in the TSLR reveals that the property is declared as ‘M’, which means ‘Municipal’. The law is well settled that mere entry in the TSLR is not conclusive proof of title. On the basis of such an entry it is not permissible for the Commissioner to come to a unilateral conclusion that the land conveyed to the father of the petitioner belongs to the Municipal Corporation. As noted above, so long as the conveyance deed remains in force, the title in the property is not divested from the petitioner’s family. If respondent No.5 is of the opinion that its property was illegally conveyed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the petitioner’s father, it can only approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief for invalidation of the sale and by getting its title declared. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. Respondent No.5 is directed to process the application for building permission treating the petitioner as owner of the property, subject, however, to its right to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate relief. It is made clear that mere sanction of building permission shall not be understood as respondent No.5 conceding the title of the petitioner over the property in question. As a sequel, WPMP Nos.26629 and 26630 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-8-2011 MNR