THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.23876 of 2011 Dated 25th August, 2011 Between: Basireddy Subba Reddy and another …Petitioners And The Commissioner, Proddatur Municipality, Proddatur, Kadapa District and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri J.Seshagiri Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri K.R.Sashidaran Nair The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, bearing Roc.No.551/08/A2, dated 19.06.2008, of respondent No.1. I have heard Sri J.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record. The dispute pertains to the property, bearing H.No.9/259 (old No.9/192), Sriramulapeta, Proddatur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. The father of the petitioners was the original owner of the property. It is the case of respondent No.2, who is the general power of attorney holder of the wife and son of T.Obul Reddy, that the property was sold by the original owner under registered sale deed No.1417/1979, dated 07.05.1979, in favour of the said T.Obul Reddy and that even after sale of the said property, the owner remained in possession as the tenant. While T.Obul Reddy filed eviction petition in R.C.C.No.4 of 1987 in the Court of the Rent Controller, Proddatur, the original owner, Basireddy Thimmareddy, filed O.S.No.48 of 1989 claiming title in the Court of the learned Principal District Munsif, Proddatur. The said suit having been dismissed, Basireddy Thimmareddy filed an appeal with an application for condonation of delay of 32 days. The said application also having been dismissed, he filed C.R.P.No.137 of 1995, which was dismissed by this Court on 17.03.1998. It is the further case of respondent No.2 that in the year 1982, the property was transferred in the name of T.Obul Reddy and in the year 1993, when the general revision of tax has taken place, the name of Basireddy Thimma Reddy was again re-entered in the municipal registers. In this backdrop, respondent No.2 filed the application before respondent No.1 for mutation of the names of the legal heirs of T.Obul Reddy in the municipal records. Respondent No.1 after notice to both the parties and considering the objections filed by the petitioners passed a detailed order in Roc.No.551/08/A2, dated 19.06.2008, whereby he has directed deletion of the names of the petitioners and entered the names of the legal heirs of T.Obul Reddy. This order is assailed in this writ petition. I have heard Sri J.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.R.Sashidaran Nair, learned counsel representing respondent No.1. At the outset, it requires to be held that the writ petition suffers from laches as the impugned order was passed as far back as 19.06.2008 and more than three years had elapsed before the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Even though the petitioners sought to give justification for filing the writ petition with enormous delay on the ground that petitioner No.1 was not well as he suffered from lumbar disc syndrome disease, I am wholly unconvinced with this explanation. Even if petitioner No.1 was not well, nothing prevented petitioner No.2 from filing the writ petition. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of the reasons mentioned by respondent No.1 in the impugned order, I am of the opinion that he has not committed any error in ordering mutation of the names of the legal heirs of T.Obul Reddy in the place of the petitioners. Nowhere in the affidavit, the petitioners disputed the facts recorded by respondent No.1 as noted hereinabove. As on today, the sale deed executed by the petitioners in favour of T.Obul Reddy subsists. The petitioners have also not disputed that their father was unsuccessful in getting his title declared with the dismissal of O.S.No.48 of 1989, which attained finality. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the findings rendered by respondent No.1 may come in the way of the petitioners asserting their right before the appropriate Court of law. This submission has no basis. Respondent No.1 while ordering mutation has observed that his decision cannot be construed as transfer of ownership of the property in favour of the legal heirs of T.Obul Reddy and that no legal right can be said to have been conferred on them. On a careful consideration of the order, which is not only a self-speaking one, but also one, which contains convincing reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with such a well-reasoned order. If the petitioners assert their title, this order will not prevent them from availing appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29269 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th August, 2011 VGB