THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.11777 of 2005 ORDER : In this Writ Petition the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 18-02-2005, issued in letter No.270/TC1/A14/2005 by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.1, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, cancelling the mutation proceedings with regard to house property bearing No.18-13-47 situated at Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. The house property bearing No.18-13-47 situated at Bandlaguda, Hyderabad was in the name of petitioner’s late father in the Municipal Tax Assessment Records mentioned by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. On the application of the petitioner that his father has executed the Will by which he has acquired rights with regard to House property bearing No.18-13-47 situated at Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, the said house was mutated in the name of the petitioner. He was also issued Assessment Notice with regard to the property tax. It appears, thereafter, the second respondent approached the first respondent stating that documents produced by the petitioner for mutation of the property are forged, fabricated and misleading. Based on such representation filed by the second respondent, the impugned cancellation proceedings were issued in Lr.No.270/ TC1/A14/2005, dated 18-02-2005. In this Writ Petition it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property in question belongs to his father and he has executed a registered Will bequeathing the property in favour of the petitioner and as such, on the representation filed by the petitioner based on the registered will deed, mutation was effected in the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that in any event, if any representation is filed by the second respondent, the first respondent should not have readily accepted and passed the impugned order cancelling the mutation without even giving an opportunity and notice to the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the impugned orders are passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice based on the false representation made by the second respondent. The counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent. In spite of service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the second respondent. In the counter-affidavit it is submitted that the petitioner approached the first respondent for mutation of his name in respect of the subject property by enclosing a copy of the Will Deed, dated 15-04-1989, which is executed on the notarised non- judicial stamp paper. It is further stated that as the petitioner obtained the mutation by misleading and cheating the authorities, the impugned orders are passed cancelling the mutation. However, the allegation of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity before passing the impugned order is not denied by the first respondent. I have also perused the material on record. A copy of the Will Deed is placed on record. According to the petitioner it is a registered document and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. In this case based on the Will Deed produced by the petitioner, the first respondent acted upon and effected mutation mutating the name of the petitioner in the property tax assessment registers with regard to house bearing No.18-13-47 situated at Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. For any reason, if any complaint by the second respondent, who is brother of the petitioner, the first respondent ought to have notified to the petitioner before passing any order. Merely because on the allegations of misrepresentation, fraud etc., as alleged, the first respondent ought not to have recorded any findings without notifying to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cancelling the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner is without following the principles of natural justice. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, there is no denial of the allegation of the petitioner that he was not given any opportunity and notice before passing the impugned order. The second respondent did not enter appearance in spite of service of notice. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of cancellation and remit the matter to consider afresh and pass appropriate orders by the first respondent after hearing the petitioner as well as the second respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed quashing the order, dated 18-02-2005, passed in Letter No.270/TC1/A14/2005 and the matter is remitted to the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to issue prior notice of hearing to the petitioner and second respondent as well and consider the matter afresh on the representation of the second respondent and pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 10th December, 2009. skmr THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.11777 of 2005 Date 10-12-2009 Between : Ahmed Sharfi .. Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.1, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Sardarmahal, Charminar, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents