IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 677 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/04/2008 in WP NO : 8913 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M.Raghava Reddy S/o.Changa Reddy R/o.Door No.8-204 Plot No.135, New Balaji Colony Tirupathi Chittoor Dist ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Tirupathi Municipal Corporation Tirupathi Chittoor Dist Rep.by its Commissioner 2 Y.Srinivasulu Reddy S/o.Y.Venkata Subba Reddy R/o.D.No.13-1-47 P.K.Street,Tirupathi Chittoor Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 677 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) Communication dated 9th February 2008 addressed by 1st respondent to the appellant, was challenged in writ petition No.8913 of 2008. After hearing the concerned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, the petition has been rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, the petitioner has filed this appeal. 2. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, it is very clear that the impugned communication was based on the outcome of Civil Proceedings, wherein it has been held by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi in O.S.No.240 of 1999 that respondent No.2 had purchased a portion of the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 2nd November 1999. In the circumstances, name of respondent No.2 has been entered into the Property Tax Register of the 1st respondent as per the provisions of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1994. 3. Submission of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant is that the judgment referred to in O.S.No.240 of 1999 has been challenged. Needless to say that if the said judgment is set aside in appeal, appropriate entries would be made in the records of 1st respondent. 4. We do not find any error committed by the learned single Judge in the impugned order passed in the writ petition. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 24th July 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr TO The Commissioner, Tirupathi Municipal Corporation, Tirupathi Chittoor Districti.