IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22919 of 2008 Between: Mutyala Lingamaiah S/o. Mutyala Muthaiah R/o. H.No.33-5, Old, Ramanthapur, Opp: Gram-Panchayat, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Uppal Circle, Uppal, Ranga Reddy. 3 T. Anil Singh S/o. Polchand Singh R/o. H.No.1-1, Peerzadiguda Village, Talab Katta, Hayatnagar Tq., Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other suitable Writ or Order declaring the action of the respondents declaring the action of the respondents No.1 and 2 in issuing order No.A1/1679/2008 dt. 16.10.2008 proposing to cancel ownership certificate bearing A1/1127/08 standing in the name of the petitioner and deleting the name of the petitioner from the Assessment registers by recording the name of respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to direct the respondents not to tamper with assessmnt registers in respect of H.No.3-5-8, Ramanthapur, Uppal, Rangareddy standing in the name of the petitioner, without authority in law and without following principles of natural justice and rule of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BANKATLAL MANDHANI Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner herein was issued an ownership certificate dated 23-07-2008 by respondent No.2 herein in respect of house bearing Door No.3-5-8, Ramanthapur Main Road, Uppal Circle, Uppal of Greater Hyderabad Corporation. Respondent No.3 herein submitted a petition before respondent No.2 on 14-08-2008 claiming ownership to house bearing No.3-5-8 and requesting to cancel the certificate dated 23-07-2008 issued in favour of the writ petitioner. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2, vide notice dated 19-08-2008, called upon the writ petitioner to submit the relevant documents relating to his ownership over the property in his possession within fifteen days. Immediately, the writ petitioner gave a reply dated 26-08-2008 requesting to furnish a copy of objection petition made by respondent No.3 dated 14-08-2008. Though the said document required by the petitioner was not furnished, the impugned order dated 16-10-2008 came to be passed proposing to cancel the certificate dated 23-07-2008 and to delete the name of the petitioner in respect of the property in question. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent No.2 - Corporation and respondent No.3. Though various contentions have been raised by the parties claiming title to the property in question, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case, particularly, in view of the fact that the dispute is the subject matter of O.S.No.1344 of 2008 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. At any rate, on a careful consideration of the entire material produced by the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the action of 2nd respondent in deciding to cancel the ownership certificate dated 23-07- 2008 without furnishing the documents as requested by the petitioner in his letter dated 26-08-2008 and without taking into consideration his explanation to the notice dated 19-08- 2008 is arbitrary and illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16-10-2008 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to furnish a copy of the objection petition dated 14-08-2008 made by respondent No.3 to the writ petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner shall submit his explanation within two weeks thereafter and then, respondent No.2 shall hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. __________​_ G. ROHINI, J 9th July, 2009 AMD/GBS