IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 8144 of 2008 Between: A.Raghvendranath S/o. A.N.Yeduvamshi R/o. H.No. 6-6-16, Bhuktapur, Adilabad, Adilabad Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Adilabad Municipality, Adilabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ order of direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent herein issuing the proceedings Roc.No.A1/293/2005, dated 29-12-2005 in canceling the mutation made in favour of the petitioner with regard to the house property bearing No.6-6-16, situated at Bhuktapur locality, Adilabad town, Adilabad District without following the rules framed under A.P. Municipalities Act as illegal, arbitrary unjust, violation of principles of natural justice, null and void and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India to the rules framed under the A.P. Municipalities Act and be pleased to set aside the same in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.S.Surender Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.Radha Krishna Polisetty The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted questioning the validity of the order that was passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Adilabad, through his proceedings, dated 29th December 2005, whereby the mutation made in favour of the petitioner in respect of house bearing municipal No.6-6-16 situated at Bhuktapur, Adilabad, has been cancelled and the name of Smt. A. Madhura Devi is restored. It is the case of the petitioner that Smt. A. Madhura Devi is his mother and she died. Therefore, he solicited mutation of his name in place of his deceased mother. However, the present impugned order has been passed, upon an objection raised by Avula Amarendra Nath on 14th March 2005 for the mutation that was affected in the name of the petitioner herein. Sri P. Radha Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipalities has pointed out that the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, exercising the power available to him under sub-section (1) of Section 326 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, made a set of rules i.e. The Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Alteration of Ownership of Property in Assessment Books) Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules’), relating to and regulating the transfer of registry of ownership of the property in the assessment books of municipalities. He has submitted that Rule 7 thereof had provided for an appeal to be preferred to the Municipal Council against the order of the Commissioner either making or refusing to make alterations in the entries in the assessment books and that such appeal shall be presented within 30 days after receipt of the order appealed against. Therefore, the learned counsel pleads that this writ petition should not be entertained for not exhausting the effective alternative remedy of preferring an appeal to the Municipal Council. Nextly, he would also contend that the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules contemplated verification of the interest and title of the applicant as well as the objector. Therefore, it requires a careful and proper scrutiny of the title and interest of the applicant as well as the objector and, hence, it is only appropriate that the same shall be scrutinized by the Municipal Council. I see considerable amount of force in the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel. When facts are needed to be ascertained, it would be appropriate that the alternative remedy is exhausted before a resort is made to the provision available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Appellate Authority would be able to consider and return a finding of fact relating to right, title and interest of both the applicant as well as the objector. This fact finding exercise can be effectively entertained and accomplished by a local agency. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to allow the writ petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal to the Municipal Council, instead of entertaining the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner also, at this stage, seeks permission to avail such a remedy, but however, he pleads that in view of the peculiar circumstances, any appeal which the petitioner might prefer in the next 15 days, appropriately explaining the factors for delay in preferring such an appeal to the Municipal Council, may be ordered to be entertained. I, therefore, dispose of this writ petition, at this stage, by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Municipal Council, Adilabad Municipality, in terms of Rule 7 of the aforementioned Rules, by availing the remedy of appeal within 15 days from now, duly explaining the reasons for the delay in preferring such an appeal. The Municipal Council shall entertain the same, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as Sri Avula Amarendra Nath, who had raised the objection initially, and a decision considered appropriate may be taken within a maximum period of six months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 17th April 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}