IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9704 of 2008 Between: 1 Syed Najmul Hasan Razvi S/o.Syed Abbas Hussain Razvi, R/o.22-3-841/A Kunche Shutar Khana,Hyd 2 Syeda Qudisa D/o.Syed Abbas Hussain Razvi R/o.22-3-841/A Kunche Shutar Khana,Hyd ..... PETITIONERS AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.4, Charminar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,order or direction, declaring the proceedings issued by the respondent vide Lr.No.2024/Tax Circle No.4/GHMC dt.25-3-2008 to the petitioner refusing to correct the assessment of the Door No.22-3- 840/A to 22-3-841/A as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the records and non-application of mind and set aside the same and further direct the respondent to correct the Door Number of the petitioners’ house from H.No.22-3-840/A to 22-3-841/A in the Records of the Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent: MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY, S.C. for M.C.H. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9704 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Syed Najmul Hasan Razvi and Syeda Qudisa with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the proceedings issued by the respondent-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vide letter No.2024/Tax Circle No.4/GHMC, dated 25.03.2008 refusing to correct the assessment of Door No.22-3-840/A to 22-3-841/A as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the records. The petitioners claim to have purchased the property bearing Door No.22-3-841/A admeasuring 180 sq. yards bounded by North: property of Madrasa Jafaria, South: Public passage, East: H.No.22-3- 840 owned by Smt.Lateefunnisa Begum, West: H.N.22-3-841/B owned by Mr.Shaker Hussain under registered sale deed bearing document No.3292/1985. They submitted an application before the respondent authorities for rectification of the door number appearing in the records from H.No.22-3-840/A to H.No.22-3-841/A. The respondent authorities issued the proceedings directing the petitioners to get the door number mentioned in the sale deed rectified. The proceedings issued by the respondent reads as hereunder:- “With reference to the subject cited, it is to inform you that the above said property bearing No.22-3-840 already been splitted in the name of Syed Najmul Hassan Razvi & Smt. Syeda Qudsia, and allotted No.22-3-840/A. In view of the above, you are hereby informed to rectify Sale Deed accordingly.” The respondent filed counter affidavit. Smt.A.V.Ramani, Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.4 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, has sworn to the affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit that there is no house bearing No.22-3-841/1, therefore, the question of rectifying the records does not arise. Paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit reads as hereunder:- “It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners submitted a representation dated 26.02.2008 for the correction of the premises No.22-3-840/A to 22-3-841/A situated at Miralam Mandi, Hyderabad. The petitioners were informed through letter dated 26.03.2008 by the respondent that property bearing No.22-3-840 was splitted and a separate number was allotted as 22-3- 840/A in favour of the petitioners, which is in conformity with the house numbers prevailing in the area. It is submitted that premises No.22-3-840 & 841 was clubbed property standing in the name of Sri Mirza Md.Baquar. He has retained a portion bearing No.22-3-840 and sold the portion of 22-3-841 to Smt.Hameeda Banu. Hameeda Banu sold to Smt.Asiya Begum. Smt.Asiya Begum sold a portion of premises bearing No.22-3-841 to Sri Syed Shaker Hussain duly assigning a number as 22-3-841/1 which never existed in the records of respondent herein. With regards to the H.No.22-3-840 which was retained by Mr.Mirza Md.Baquar, later on transferred it to Mrs.Liaquatunnisa Begum. In turn Mrs.Liaqatunnisa Begum has transferred a portion of the property to 1) Sri Syed Najmul Hussain Razvi, 2) Smt.Syeda Qudisa who are the present owners of the premises bearing Municipal No.22-3-840/A. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that the respondent mutated their names in the year 1996 in the place of their vendor in the records by reflecting the wrong assessment H.No.22-3-840/A instead of H.No.22-3-841/A and passed the impugned order wit non-application of mind refusing to correct it as H.No.22-3-841/A is unjust and untenable as such the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition.” Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the proceedings impugned in the writ petition do not speak of non- existence of house bearing No.22-3-841/1 and therefore there cannot be any valid ground for rejection of the request of the petitioners for rectification of Door Number of the house purchased by them. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the representation submitted by the petitioners for rectification of the door number is not considered since the house with door number 22-3- 841/1 does not exist. I have gone through the proceedings impugned in the writ petition referred to above. It does not indicate that the house bearing door number 22-3-841/1 does not exist. If the house bearing door number 22-3-841/1 does not exist, the respondent Municipal Corporation has to reply to the representation after considering the entries appearing in the house tax demand register. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to inform the petitioners as to why the representation for rectification of the door number cannot be considered, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ___________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 30.06.2008 v v