K Vaanisree Vs the State of Ap

“.... to issue a Writ or Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent authorities have failed to act on the petitioner‟s application submitted on 09.12.2024 for the mutation of his name in the municipal tax records. Additionally, the representation submitted to the „Meekosam Praja Samsyala Piryadula Parishkara Vedika‟ (Grievance Cell) on 23.12.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice consequently direct the Respondent dispose of the application of the petitioner submitted on 09.12.2024 as well as 23.12.2023 …...”

¶26

The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property to an extent of 430.55 square yards situated in Sy.No.11/2B/2 M7D, located in No.9, Akarampalli Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati sub-D, Tirupathi Town, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No.23858 of 2024 dated 13.09.2024 from Gandavalla Narendra Kumar and G.Ramesh. Before proceeding with the registration of this document, the Joint Sub-Registrar-1 of Tirupathi RO, Tirupathi sought a legal opinion from the Special Government Pleader. The learned Special Government Pleader basing on the survey report submitted by the Mandal Surveyor, Tirupati Urban confirming that the vendors of the petitioner i.e. Gandavalla Narendra Kumar and G.Ramesh are the absolute owners of the subject property and the boundaries of the property match with the schedule property in the documents submitted for registration recommended to proceed with registration to release of the document. After receipt of said legal opinion, the Joint Sub-Registrar-I of Tirupati registered the document and subsequently released the same. Thereafter, on 09.12.2024, the petitioner submitted an application to the 2^nd

¶27

3

¶28

respondent, requesting for mutation of her name in the municipal tax records in respect of the subject property. As the said representation is kept pending, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶30

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel representing the 2^nd respondent furnished a copy of instructions of the Revenue Officer, Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, dated 18.01.2025, wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s application dated 09.12.2024 was forwarded to the Town Surveyor for inspection of the subject property and the Town Surveyor, in his report dated 06.01.2025, stated that there is civil dispute between the vendors of the property in O.S.No.67 of 2024 before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and the same is pending for adjudication before the Civil Court. As such, an endorsement was issued to the petitioner vide P.G.R.S.No.18/2025/A5, dated 07.01.2025, informing the petitioner that the subject property is involved in O.S.No.67 of 2024 before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati and therefore, her application for mutation will be considered only after finalization of dispute in the civil court.

¶31

It is to be noted that the respondent authorities do not have any authority to decide the title and has to go by documents submitted by the petitioner herein, including the registered sale deed, and then proceed for mutation. But, however, on perusal of the application dated 09.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner, it can be seen that the petitioner has failed to

¶32

4

¶33

furnish the registered sale deed as well as electricity charges receipts to prove

¶34

that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property.

¶35

In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh application, duly enclosing all the necessary documents to prove her right over the subject property, to the respondents herein. Upon receiving such application, the respondents are directed to consider the same, in accordance with law.

¶36

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand

¶38

closed.

¶39

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶40

Date: 20.01.2025 KGR

K Vaanisree v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Vaanisree v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Narasimha Patrudu Makena, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Maddela Mariyamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Mohammad Asif Jilani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koya Tejaswi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

KalagaraVenkata Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Adipudi Veera Raghava Rao Vs State of A.P.