IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 796 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/04/2009 in WP NO : 2562 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Chennamsetty Ratnabhaskari W/o. Late Ch. Gopal Rao, R/o. D.No. 13-1-8(1) Gunupudi, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Bhimavaram,Municipality Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :796 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.2562 of 2009 is the appellant herein. In the said writ petition, the appellant challenged the action of Bhimavaram Municipality, West Godavari District in refusing to carry out mutation of the property, being a house site admeasuring 324 sq.yds. at Gunupudi, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, in her favour and insisting upon production of registered documents or a Succession Certificate issued by the Court. It is the case of the appellant that she inherited the subject property from her mother, late Smt. Ramalakshmi. She submitted her representation to the Commissioner, Bhimavaram Muncipality, the 2nd respondent herein, on 28-8-2008 seeking mutation of her name in the Municipal records and to assess the property tax in her name in respect of the subject property. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent issued the endorsement dated 19-9-2008 calling upon her to submit registered documents or a succession certificate issued by the Court evidencing that the subject property belongs to her, so that further action may be taken upon her application for mutation. Challenging the same, the writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge, while adverting to the fact that the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition No.26404 of 2007 earlier questioning the inaction of the respondent-Municipality in considering her representation dated 3-1-2007 for mutation of her name in the Municipal records and that by order dated 13.8.2008, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Municipality to consider the objections of the 3rd respondent therein and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner. The learned Judge also referred to the fact that the petitioner had emerged successful in the civil litigation revolving around the subject property O.S.No.333 of 1982 and A.S.No.19 of 1989. However, stating so, the learned Judge took the view that it was for the petitioner to produce the succession certificate as insisted upon by the Municipality for carrying out the mutation. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned judge. Before us, the appellant submitted the 3rd party affidavit filed by one Nallam Satya Prasad, who is no other than the son of late Nallam Venkata Ramaiah, the brother of the appellant. In the said affidavit, the deponent thereto admitted to the fact that the subject property bearing house No.13-1-8 (1) and the house site admeasuring 324 sq.yrds in Gunipudi Village, Bhimavaram Municipality belonged to his grandfather and after his death, to his grand mother, N.Ramalakshmi. He further stated that the grand mother died in the year 2005 and that the property was inherited by the appellant. It is also specifically stated in the affidavit that he has no objection to the mutation of the said property in the name of the appellant as he had no right, title or interest over the same, as it was given by his grandmother to his paternal aunt, the appellant herein. Reference may also be made to Rule 6 of the Alteration of Ownership of Property in Assessment Books (Rules) 1966. Rule 6 states that the Commissioner may, on satisfactory proof, order alterations in the entries in the assessment book in the case of transfer accruing by succession. The above Rule only requires the Commissioner to ask for satisfactory proof and does not require that the applicant for mutation of the property accrued through sucession should produce registered documents or a succession certificate obtained through Court. In the present case, it is not the stand of the Municipality that there are any other owners who may lay a claim to the subject property through late Smt. Ramalakshmi. On the other hand, the affidavit filed by the son of the deceased brother of the appellant clearly shows that he had no objection to the mutation being carried out in the name of the appellant as he had no right, title or interest in the property. This is sufficient proof as required under Rule 6 of the above cited Rules. In the circumstances, the stand of the Municipality that the appellant has to produce registered documents or a succession certificate is unwarranteed. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed directing the respondent- Municipality to act upon the application dated 28-8-2008 submitted by the appellant seeking mutation of her name in the Municipal records with respect to the subject property without insisting upon production of a succession certificate or registered documents in proof of her ownership, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________ Justice SANJAY KUMAR Dated 13th July, 2009. Dvs/Gurc HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :796 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) Dated 13th July, 2009.