IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9643 of 2008 Between: V.Bharathamma W/o.late Parvathalu Resident of H.No.12-2-398/83, Marekandeya Nagar Tallagadda,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary,Municipal Administration, Secretariat Hyderabad 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commisisoner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Commissioner, Circle -7,Greater hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairtabad,Hyderabad 4 Abdul Wali Farooqui S/o.M.A.Aziz Farooqui Resident of H.No.12-2399/1, Tallagadda Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing assessment orders regarding assessment of the premises belonging to the writ petition by changing the name of the owner and giving another house number as unconstitutional illegal, and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to declare that proceedings dated 24.7.2003 with H.no.12-2-393/83 stands good and are final with all consequential effects/benefits after setting aside the proceedings issued by Respondent No.3 on 10.3.2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 9643 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by V.Bharathamma with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the assessment order regarding the assessment of the premises belonging to her by changing the name of the owner and giving another house number as illegal. A further relief has been sought for to declare that the proceedings dated 24-7-2003 with H.No. 12-2-393/83 shall hold good and needs no rectification. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the house bearing Door NO.12-2-393/83. When her neighbour tried to encroach upon the house, she filed O.S.NO. 4050 of 2003 on the file of the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. She also secured police protection as per orders in I.A.NO. 512 of 2003. The 4th respondent filed a suit against her in the year 2004. In the said suit, 4th respondent filed a proceeding dated 9-3-2004 issued by third respondent to prove his ownership over the suit premises. Respondent NO.3 issued proceedings dated 9-3-2004 showing the name of the 4th respondent as the owner of the premises bearing NO. 12-2-399/1 situated at Markandya Nagar. The third respondent also issued proceedings on10-3-2008 restoring the status as on 31-8-2007. 4th Respondent was issued a new assessment order as the owner in respect of the premises bearing No. 12-2-399/1. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is the owner and possessor of house bearing No. 12-2-393/83 and the proceedings issued on 9- 3-2004 regarding the 4th respondent as owner is liable to be set aside. Despite notice being served on the 4th respondent, he did not choose to appear either in person or through a counsel. 4. 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit. Sri P.V. Rama Murthy has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the ownership of the petitioner in respect of House No. 12-2-393/83 has been restored. Paras 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and they are: “After coming to know about it, the 4th respondent herein through his representation dated 25-1-2008 made to the 2nd respondent disclosed the true facts stating that his suit O.S.No. 2128 of 2004 filed against the writ petitioner for declaration of title was dismissed for default on 25-7-2006 and the same was restored to its file on 11-9-2007 and in view of that he requested for withdrawal of the order dated 1-9-2007 to avoid further complications inn the pending suit which was restored to file. While considering it my predecessor through vide letter NO. 1043/TC7/76/GHMC /2008/107, dated 10-3-2008 restored the assessment of H.No. 12-2-399/1 in favour of 4th respondent herein, observing that, with regard to earlier orders issued on 1-9-2007, status as on 31-8-2007 shall be maintainable. 7. It is respectfully submitted that, as a result of the said orders dated 10-3-2008 passed by me, the assessment of H.No. 12-2- 393/83 as on 24-7-2003 in the name of the writ petitioner deemed to have been restored. While assessment of H.No.12- 2-399/1 made in the name of 4th respondent remained undisturbed, without affecting the rights fo the both parties in the pending suit”. 5. The petitioner filed reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavit that she aggrieved by the proceeding where under the name of 4th respondent as owner of house bearing Door No. 12-3-399/1 remained undisturbed. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the officials of the respondents submitted a report stating that two door numbers have been given to one and the same premises and thereby disputes arose between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. A further submission has been made that the petitioner is owner and possessor of the house bearing H.No. 12-3-393/83. 8. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the name of the petitioner as owner of the premises bearing House No. 12-2-393/83 has been restored and the relief sought for in the writ petition has virtually fulfilled. The question whether the Municipal authorities have given the two door number to the self same property is required to be examined in the civil suit which is stated to be pending as O.S.No. 2128 of 2004 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 9. In view of the specific assertions made by the respondents 1 to 3 in para-7 of the counter affidavit that the name of the petitioner as owner of the premises bearing Door No. 12-2-393/83, no further direction need be given to the respondents 1 to 3 in this writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to retain the name of the petitioner as owner and the possessor of the House bearing No.12- 3-393/83 in the Corporation records subject to the result of the suit bearing O.S.No. 2128 of 2004 instituted by the 4th respondent. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 12th August, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 9643 OF 2008 12th August, 2008.