IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8913 of 2008 Between: M.Raghava Reddy S/o.Changa Reddy, R/o.Door No.8- 204 Plot No.135, New Balaji Colony Tirupathi Chittoor Dist. ..... PETITIONER 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 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent passed in ROC No.5836/2005/A6/A2 dt.9-02-2008 as illegal arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.8913 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the order passed by the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation on 09-02-2008, as illegal. Through the Proceedings dated 09-02-2008, the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation has amended the assessment register for payment of property tax and mutated the name of the 2nd respondent with reference to the house bearing No. 14-2-201, Ward No.14, T.P. Area, Tirupati. The petitioner has claimed that he and another individual by name Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy have jointly purchased the property in question and that subsequently, the other co-owner Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy has relinquished his right in the favour of the petitioner and executed the relinquishment deed on 27-03-1999 to that effect, but however, failed to execute a registered relinquishment deed later on and that the 2nd respondent, taking advantage of the same, started interfering with the right, title and possession of the property in question, with the petitioner. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner has instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.240 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for specific performance and for perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the said civil suit, it is alleged that the co-owner Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 15-03- 2000 and hence, he has amended the civil suit duly deleting the prayer for specific performance. It is further alleged that the said co-owner has also executed a registered cancellation deed canceling the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent herein. Ultimately, the civil suit (O.S.No.240 of 1999) has been dismissed on 08-10- 2007 and that the petitioner has carried the matter in appeal in A.S.No.155 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and the same is still pending. In these set of circumstances, therefore, the petitioner claims that the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation has committed an error in entertaining the application of the 2nd respondent for entering his name in the assessment register for payment of property tax with reference to the property in question. It is apparent on the face of the record that the 2nd respondent herein has produced a copy of the judgment rendered by the Civil Court in O.S.No.240 of 1999. The finding of the Civil Court is to the following effect: “Therefore, it is very clear that the 1st plaintiff who has got only half share over the suit schedule premises now wanted to enjoy the entire premises under the guise of permanent injunction that too against true owner. I am not inclined to accept his plea that he is entitled to injunction till he is evicted by due process of law. The second defendant being owner of half un-divided share is seemed to be in possession of the property. Apart from the above the further cross- examination of P.W.1 (13.4.2005) clearly shows that the structures in the suit schedule property were constructed during 2003. The 1st plaintiff has further stated that second plaintiff is no way concerned with the suit schedule premises. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any injunction against the defendant No.2. I answer this issue in favour of D.2 and against the plaintiffs.” It is no doubt true that the petitioner appears to have preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment rendered by the Civil Court in O.S.No.240 of 1999, but however, as of now, the finding recorded by a competent Civil Court is in favour of the 2nd respondent herein and against the petitioner to the extent of recognizing the 2nd respondent’s right of co-ownership and the factum of his possession. Therefore, the 2nd respondent cannot be prevented as of now from reaping the benefit of the decree. It will be appropriate to notice that in terms of Section 14 of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1994, the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, have been rendered applicable to the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation. In terms of Section 225 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, the Commissioner has got the power to entertain a representation from any person and upon securing such information, as is necessary, has got the power to order for insertion in the assessment register or for adding the name of any such person, whose name, ought to be so inserted by way of amendment. It is a mere amendment brought about to the registers of assessment maintained by the 1st respondent Corporation so as to enable the person whose name so gets mutated to pay for the property tax of the premises concerned. An entry in the assessment register per se does not confer any right of title in favour of such a person over the property in question. If the writ petitioner ultimately succeeds in the appeal preferred by him against the decree and judgment rendered by the Civil Court in O.S.No.240 of 1999, he is then entitled to solicit the correction of the assessment register maintained by the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation. But, as of now, no exception can be drawn to the action of the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation in amending and then inserting the name of the 2nd respondent in the assessment register maintained by it. I, therefore, do not find any justifiable reason or cause to entertain the writ petition and, accordingly, it is dismissed at the stage of admission. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 25th April 2008 mrk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}