IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2277 of 2006 Between: Pilla Veera Bhasker, S/o Pilla Appa Rao, r/o 27-1-203, Srinagar Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Gajuwaka Zone, Visakhapatnam-26 represented by its Commissioner. 2 The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation represented by its Revenue Inspector. 3 Manibhushan, Revenue Inspector, The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. 4 Pilla Shanker Rao, s/o late Ramunaidu, r/o 27-1-246, Srinagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ...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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus declaring the action on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking any steps for cancellation of assessment of the property covered by D.No.27- 1-246 which is stood in the name of the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and against the proceedings dt.18-10-2005 and consequently direct the respondents to assess the name of the petitioner in the property D.No.27-1-246 as per the proceedings Roc.No.391/2004/A7 dt.18-10-2005 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2277 of 2006 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Pilla Veera Bhasker with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking any steps for cancellation of assessment of the property covered by D.No.27-1-246, which stood in the name of Pilla Shanker Rao-the fourth respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the proceedings dated 18.10.2005. The brief facts of the case, which led to file this Writ petition by Pilla Veera Bhaskar as set out in the Writ Affidavit, are: – The father of the petitioner and the fourth respondent are brothers. There are two house properties bearing Door Nos.27-1- 248 and 27-1-245/4. Both the house properties fell to his share in the partition effected under a registered partition deed dated 17.03.2004. The name has been mutated by the Gajuwaka Municipality in respect of both the houses. The fourth respondent filed an application for mutation of his name in the Municipal records in respect of D.No.27-1-245/4. Mutation has been effected in his name. Basing on mutation, he filed an application seeking building permission and the permission came to be accorded. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation before the then Additional Commissioner, Gajuwaka Municipality for cancellation of the assessment effected in favour of the fourth respondent and the same came to be cancelled. Paragraph No.3 of the registered notice reads as under: “Previously the said properties are assessed to tax in your records in the name of Pilla Sankara Rao with the following Nos.Old Assessment No.52389/27 – New Assessment No.1088030848. Old Assessment No.27-1074, Door No.27-1-246 and the taxes being collected in the name of Pilla Sankara Rao. After the partition of the properties, the said Sankara Rao has no right over the properties and he is not the owner, as such the said assessments have to be cancelled and the assessments may be issued my clients name. If the assessments are not cancelled, the said Sankara Rao may use the same as evidence in false litigation and involve my client in the litigation.” When there is no action on the part of the Additional Commissioner, Gajuwaka Municipality, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel for the fourth respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation with regard to cancellation of assessment effected in favour of the fourth respondent would suffice in the Writ Petition. A fact remains that the petitioner submitted a representation to the Additional Commissioner, Gajuwaka Municipality. The said Municipality came to be merged with the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. In such a case, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application afresh before the first respondent ventilating his grievances as well as his request to cancel the assessment made in favour of the fourth respondent. The first respondent shall dispose of the said representation within a period of four weeks thereafter. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. _______________________ (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 11th June 2008 Note: CC in one week B/O RRB