IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30134 OF 2023 Between: 1. Pindi Narayana Murthy, S/o.P.Venkayya, Hindu, aged 51 years, Occ: Cultivation R/o.D.No.9-2-117/B, Kalavakolanuvari Street, Amalapuram, Dr.B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema District, Andhra Pradesh 2. Veera Tulasi Ramu, S/o.Veera Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 45 years, Occ: Cultivation R/o.D.No.11-3-6, Vantedduvari Street, Amalapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh 3. GandhaChandra Rao, S/o.G.Venkataratnam, Hindu, aged 55 years, Occ; Cultivation R/o.Challapalli Village, Uppalaguptam Mandal Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Gurram Krishna Murthy, S/ o. G.Kondalarayudu, Hindu, aged 92 years, Occ.Cultivation R/o.Bendamurlanka Village, Allavaram Mandal Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh 5. Gurram Surya Rao, S/o. G.Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 60 years, Occ: Cultivation R/o.Benamurlanka Village, Allavaram Mandal Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Kona seema District, Andhra Pradesh 6. Yalla Satish, S/o.Y.Muralikrishna, Hindu, aged 45 Years, Occ; Cultivation R/o.Benamurlanka Village, Allavaram Mandal Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh 7. Nalla Satyanarayana, S/o.N.Babulu Hindu, aged 45 years, Occ: Cultivation R/o.Benamurlanka Village, Allavaram Mandal Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh ...PETITIONERS AND p r r 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 2. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, PRIME HILL CREST, 4*^ Floor, Near DGP Office Vaddeswaram Village, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Amalapuram Municipality Amalapuram, East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Commissioner 4. Kalavakolanu Anji Ganesh, S/o.K.Ramakrishna Rao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Occ.Business R/ o .H .No .10-1- 100/ 2, Kalavakolanuvari Street Amalapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema Dist. Andhra Pradesh 5. V.Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o.Late V.Kanakayya Panthulu Aged 50 f years, R/o.D.No.1-4-9/2 Amalapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar konaseema Dist. Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3'"^ Respondent in taking steps to record the name of the 4**^ Respondent in respect of the vacant land and the shed situated in an extent of Ac.0.42 cents in R.S.No.384/10, 384/6, and R.S.No.180/6 of Amalapuram Town, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh for raising tax as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the 3'^'^ Respondent not to record the name of the 4*^ Respondent in respect of thd said property. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bd pleased to direct the respondent no.3 not to record the name of the 4‘^ ^ respondent in respect of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.42 cents in R.S.No.384/10, 384/6, and R.S.No.180/6 of Amalapuram Town, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3: M/s. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI C. SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI Y. KANAKALINGESWARA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010582372023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30134/2023 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Pindi Narayana Murthy and others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner(S); 1.TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3.Y KANAKALINGESWARA RAO 4.CSUBODH The Court made the following; 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: to issue a writ, order or direction more particulariy one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in taking steps to record the name of the 4"’ respondent in respect of the vacant land and the shed situated in an extent of Ac-0.42 cents in R.S.No.384/10, 384/6 and R.S.No.180/6 of Amalapuram Town, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh for raising tax as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the 3/'^ respondent not to record the name of the 4th respondent in respect of the said property... ” The brief facts of the case are as follows; 2. a) The property in question, totaling an extent of Ac.0.42 cents of land in R.S.Nos.384/10, 384/6 and 180/6 in Amalapuram Town, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, originally belongs to late Vadlamani Kanakaiah, who died intestate. His four sons divided the property among themselves in 1957. After the death of Ramakrishnaiah, who is one of the sons of Kanakaiah, his share of property bequeathed upon his wife Seethamma. Seethamma has no children and after she also passed away, the property was inherited by the children of V. Satyanarayana Murthy, another son of Kanakaiah, who had also passed away without executing a will. His children became the owners of the entire Ac.0.42 cents. b) Ms.Bhanumati, who is one of the daughters of late Satyanarayana Murthy, along with other sharers, filed a suit in O.S.No.5/2010 for partition of 3 4 Ac.0.42 cents, but it was withdrawn after all the sharers shares to the petitioners under different sold their respective registered possessory agreement of sale cum GPA on different dates. Consequently, the petitioners are now in possession of the property. c) However, the 4th respondent fabricated a sale agreement as if it is executed by the 5*^ respondent, who has having only 1/30 said property. Then the 4*^ respondent filed specific performance. In the said suit, S**" share out of the a suit in O.S.No.21/2012 for respondent filed written statement denying her signature on the agreement, and thereafter the petitioners themselves got impleaded the property. as parties in the said suit to protect their rights over d) Subsequently, the 4th and 5th respondents colluded created a fraudulent sale deed together and on 29.07.2019, transferring the entire Ac.0.42 cents despite the 5th respondent’s having only a small share. Then, the 4'^ respondent tried to get his name mutated to the municipal records, using political influence. Thereupon, the 05.09.2019 requesting the 3'"' respondent due to their objection, but the 4*^ petitioners sent a legal notice not to alter the municipal records on respondent continued pressurizing the authorities. As such, the petitioners filed this writ petition. 3. The respondent No.3 filed a detailed counter in support of their However, it is stated that that the 4^^ case. respondent is continuously representing the Municipality since 2019, attempting to change the name from Vadlamani Lima Maheswara Rao/5‘'' respondent to his name i.e, K.AnJi Ganesh/4*^ wrespondent, in the municipal records. However, the Municipality did not effect due to the representations made by the petitioners. It is further stated that without deciding the ownership of the property by an appropriate Civil Court, the Municipality could not take a decision to alter the name in the property records, either in favour of the petitioners or the 4**^ respondent. Government Pleader for Municipal his name. learned 4. During hearing Administration and Urban Development stated that they are not the competent the title/ownership and they are only registration authority to decide authorities. unofficial clear from the above, the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.4 and 5 have approached competent Civil Court claiming right the said property, which is in fact a title dispute among them. As the dispute with regard to title is pending before the competent Civil Court, the relief sought for by the petitioners herein cannot be granted. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the cause in the writ petition does not survive. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to 5. It is over 7. 8. costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //true copy// To, , Advocate [OPUC] i, SC for CC to Sri Turaga Sai Surya 1 One 2,OneCCtoM/s.SireeshaRaniVallabhane™ Municipalities[OPUCl 3. One CC to Sri Y. Kanakalingeswara Rao, Advocate[OPUO 4. One CC to Sri C. Subodh, Advocate[OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies. ssb high court ■i DATED:24/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.30134of 2023 OF ANO^ , X 1 5 FEB 2025 . Current Section ^ m Co CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS