1 APHC010194342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 10695/2025 Between: 1. PUTCHA VENKATA RAVI, S/O. SRI RAM MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.9/4/14, GOUTHAMI NAGAR, KOVVURU WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTORCUMAPPELLATE COMMISSIONER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE KOVVURU MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KOVVURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondents in mutating the name of the Petitioner in respect of property in 2 D.No.9-10-2004 with assessment No. 1076004409 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of right to property guaranteed under Article.300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to mutate the name of the Petitioner by considering his application for the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Writ Petition No. 10695 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of Respondent Authorities in mutating the name of the Petitioner in respect of the property in D.No.9-10-2004 with assessment No.1076004409 located at Kovvuru Village, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner submits that he had succeeded to the property under a Will executed by his grand father on 10.10.1994 with regard to two properties i.e., house bearing Assessment Nos.1076004409 and 1076004410 of Kovvuru Village. On succeeding to the property, the Petitioner said to have been made an application to mutate his name for the respective properties covered under the above assessment numbers. 3. The Petitioner submits that the property covered under Assessment No.1076004410 was mutated in the name of the Petitioner. As regard the mutation in so far as the subject assessment bearing No. 1076004409, the application of the Petitioner was returned with an endorsement that there is a civil dispute pending in respect of the subject assessment number and hence, mutation could not be effected. 4 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the said civil disputes have not been mentioned in the impugned order, and in that context, the Petitioner is handicapped from challenging or proceeding against the same before a civil court. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel on instructions submits that the Convener of Sri Satya Sai Seva Samithi, Kovvur, had submitted a representation to the Respondent Authorities not to make any mutation in the name of the Petitioner in respect of the schedule property as they are claiming the said property under registered Gift Deed vide document No. 18 of 1983. It is also stated that Satya Sai Mandiram was constructed in the said premises. It is also stated that an enquiry was conducted in the year 2022 and after enquiry, the claim of the Petitioner was rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the details of the person who is claiming the dispute over the subject property and the nature of the dispute were not specified in the impugned order so as to enable the Petitioner to file an appropriate case in Civil Court. 7. After hearing the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the endorsement issued by the Respondent Authorities do not reflect the details as to the nature of the dispute and the enquiry conducted by the 5 Respondent Authorities and therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the Respondent Authorities to pass a detailed order explaining the nature of dispute and other relevant reasons rather than issuing an unreasoned endorsement to the Petitioner. This exercise should be completed within a period of Eight weeks from today. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 30.06.2025 eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Writ Petition No. 10695 of 2025 Date: 30.06.2025 eha U