IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.25950 of 2000 Between: 1 Kurli Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. Ramalinga Reddy, R/o. Kurli Village, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapur District. 2 Kurli Suresh Chandra Reddy, S/o. Kurli Chandrasekhar Reddy, R/o. D.No.345, 7th Main, H.A.L.II Stage, Bangalore. 3 Kurli Siva Prasada Reddy, S/o. Kurli Chandrasekhar Reddy, Talupula Mandalam. 4 T.D.Umadevi, W/o. T.D.Mohan Reddy, Gandhodivaripalli, Tanakal Mandalam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Kadiri Municipality, Rep. by its Municopal Commissioner, Kadiri, Ananthapur. 2 Kurli Surya Sekhar Reddy, S/o. Ramalinga Reddy, R/o. By-pass Road, Kadiri, Ananthapur 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 will be pleased to to issuean appropriate Writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the ﬁrst respondent in Roc.No.1839A/A1, dated 22-6-1999 as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, consequently being void and also violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of of the Constitution of India by setting aside the same and issue a consequential direction to the ﬁrst respondent to include the name of the petitioner herein in the municipal records as joint owner with respect to the house bearing No.1-1162-3, and the open space abutting the same in Sy.No.650-11A of kadiri Village, Ananthapur District, and pass such other order or orders as are deemed ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.RAVINDER RAO The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GSNM} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.25950 of 2000 O R D E R: Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents 1 and 2. This writ petition has been ﬁled questioning the letter of the Commissioner, Kadiri Municipality of Ananthapur District in Roc.No.1839A/A1/97, dated 22.06.1999 addressed to the deceased petitioner informing him that his request for inclusion of his name in the assessment No.1943 for Door No.1/1162-3, Kadiri was already rejected by letter dated 05.06.1998, and in so far as furnishing the certiﬁed copy of the extract of the proceedings is concerned, it is stated that the original record of the same was not available and as and when the original record is traced out, the same will be furnished. It is the case of the petitioner that after ﬁling of the writ petition, the sole petitioner died and his legal heirs were brought on record. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the sons of Ramalinga Reddy and there was partition of the joint family properties by partition deed dated 26.07.1963 and thereafter, the deceased petitioner and 2nd respondent lived jointly, reuniting the joint family properties, and to the property in question the names of the deceased petitioner and the 2nd respondent shall be mutated in the municipal records. But, it is stated that the property was recorded in the name of the 2nd respondent alone. The 1st respondent-Municipal Commissioner ﬁled counter, stating that the issued for inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the assessment register will be considered if the petitioner establishes his right, title and interest over the said property and on production of any such document, the necessary change will be made in the concerned records. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner also ﬁled a suit being O.S.3/2001 on the ﬁle of the Principal Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur for declaration of his right and title over the property in question. I am of the opinion that if the Civil Court decreed the suit holding that the petitioner is also having right, title and interest over the property in question, the petitioner is entitled to seek mutation of his name in the concerned records and the municipality has to mutate the name of the petitioner as one of the title owner of the property in question in the concerned records. Without there being any declaration from the competent civil court, it cannot be said that the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the 1st respondent is illegal and arbitrary. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 30.09.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Kadiri Municipality, Rep. by its Municopal Commissioner, Kadiri, Ananthapur. 2.2CCs to 3.2CD copies