The petitioner challenged mutation proceedings as arbitrary for excluding co-owners. The Court held that an alternative remedy of appeal exists and the petitioner had utilized it. Thus, interference is unwarranted.
Directed the first respondent to consider the pending appeal as against the third respondent's order and pass appropriate orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 13088 of 2009
Between:
V. Amarnath Reddy S/o. V. Prathap Reddy R/o. H.No. 3-27, Vikrampuri Colony Street No.4, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.
.... PETITIONER
AND
....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 an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in transferring the property bearing 2-2-1132/1/B, situated at Nallakunta, Hyderabad in favour of Sri V. Krishna Reddy without giving notice to other share holders/Co-owners as illegal arbitrary-unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the mutation proceedings in file no. 2740/TC3/C2/MCH/03 dt. 8-10-2003 in respect of the premises bearing 2-2-1132/1/B, situated at Nallakunta, Hyderabad 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.A.RAVI BABU
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV.
Counsel for respondents 2 & 3: Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Standing Counsel for MCH
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 13088 of 2009
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the third respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in effecting the mutation in respect of the property bearing No.2-2-1132/1/B, Nallakunta, Hyderabad in favour of one Mr. V.Krishna Reddy without giving notice to the other co-owners, as arbitrary and illegal.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3.
At the outset, it is to be noticed that as against the impugned proceedings of the third respondent, dated 8.10.2003, an alternative remedy of appeal is available under the Statute and the petitioner has already availed such a remedy. In the circumstances, it is for the appellate authority-1st respondent herein to consider the grievances of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted.
Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the first
respondent to consider the appeal pending on its file as against the order of the third respondent dated 8.10.2003 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
_____________ G.ROHINI, J
Dt.02-07-2009 RAR
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 13088 of 2009
DATED : 02-07-2009
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with mutation proceedings where an alternative remedy of appeal exists.
Whether the petitioner availed the statutory remedy against the impugned order of mutation.
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of at the admission stage.
V. Amarnath Reddy
The Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Government of A.P.
The Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
