IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.25508 of 2008 Between: 1. Mohd. Abdul Jabbar (Muslim) S/o. Late Md. Moulana Saheb R/o. H.No. 2-1-170/2/3, Amarawadi Nagar, Suryapet Village & Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. 2. Mohd. Abdul Gaffar (Muslim) S/o. Late Md. Moulana Saheb R/o. H.No. 2-1-170/2/3, Amarawadi Nagar, Suryapet Village & Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. ... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Municipal Council, rep. by its Chairperson Suryapet Municipality, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 2. The Municipality Rep. by its Commissioner Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 3. Shaik Tajuddin (Muslim) S/o. Late Nabi Saheb H.No. 1-1-469, Nehru Nagar, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 4. Shaik Gulam Dastagiri (Muslim) S/o. Late Nabi Saheb R/o. Tungaturthy Village & Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5. Shaik Abdul Raheem (Muslim) S/o. Late Nabi Saheb R/o. Tungaturthy Village & Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENTS 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, order or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the first respondent dated 17-11- 2008 issued in Proc.No. A1/3005/2008 along with proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 18-10-2008 issued in Proc. No. A1/2414/2008 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to rules, without application of mind and also with a prejudiced mind to help the respondents 3 to 5 and consequently declare that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 09-08-2007 issued in Proceedings No. A1/2414/2005 with regard to mutation are final as long as the respondents 3 to 5 not establish their rights over the subject property through a competent Civil Court and further direct the respondent No.2 to take further steps to mutate the names of the petitioners in place of his late father in the assessment registers of the 2nd respondent and grant them permission for construction etc., as per law. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. T. P. ACHARYA Counsel for the Respondent No. : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners state that they are the absolute owners of the petition schedule lands and when an order was passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, who is arrayed as second respondent, on 18-10-2008, they approached this Court and filed W.P.No.23381 of 2008. This Court having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for the Municipality and also the learned counsel for the un-official respondent No.4, disposed of the said writ petition by an order dated 24-10-2008 directing the petitioners to exhaust the alternative remedy of filing an appeal. Further, this Court categorically gave a finding that the order dated 18- 10-2008 shall not be given effect to till the expiry of the time for filing of the appeal. Thereafter, it appears the petitioners approached the appellate authority and filed an appeal on 30-10-2008 and the fist respondent Council met on 31-10-2008, but however, for want of time, the appeal could not be decided and accordingly the matter is adjourned to 29-11-2008. In the meanwhile, the Chairperson passed the impugned order stating that there are no grounds to interfere with the said appeal and accordingly rejected the said appeal. Questioning the said order dated 17-11-2008 the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for the Municipality and also Sri. B. Sarvotham Reddy, who entered appearance by way of filing caveat on behalf of the fifth respondent, this Court is of the view that the order impugned is illegal. When once an appeal lies to the Council and the appeal is preferred, it is for the Council to decide the said appeal, but not the Chairperson. Further, when it is stated that the Council in its meeting held on 31-10-2008 adjourned the matter to 29-11-2008, the Chairperson ought not to have passed such an order and it can definitely be said that the order impugned is not only illegal but also without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order dated 17-11-2008, impugned in this writ petition, is hereby set aside. However, as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the next date of meeting is 29-11-2008 the first respondent Council is hereby directed to dispose of the said appeal after affording an opportunity to the petitioners in accordance with law. If for any reason, the appeal is not decided on 29-11-2008 i.e. the next date of hearing, the first respondent Council is at liberty to decide the same on the next date of hearing. But it is made clear that till the said appeal is decided no further proceedings, such as mutation or construction shall take place. 3. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. ________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA November 21, 2008 GLV ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER Copy to: 1. The Municipal Council, rep. by its Chairperson Suryapet Municipality, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 2. The Municipality Rep. by its Commissioner Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 3. Two CCs to 4. Two CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}