APHC010638642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 33181/2025 Between: 1. P. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O LATE P. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED 61 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O FLAT NO.407, 8TH BLOCK, ROYAL GREEN CITY APARTMENTS, AUTO NAGAR ROAD, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA -520007 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF A.P. MUNICIPAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 2. VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NEHRU BUILDINGS, CANAL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE - I, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA. ...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 a writ, order, or, direction more particularly in the 2 nature of Writ of Mandamus in issuing endorsement in RC.A2 -114335/2025 dt.26.09.2025 insisting upon the petitioner for production of the death certificate of his grandfather and grandmother for effecting mutation of the property in No.6/209 (old) Door.No.11-26-3 (new) of Uppulurivari Street, Vijawayada is arbitrary, illegal and colourable exercise of power and for extraneous reasons and to set aside the same, and to issue a consequential direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to mutate the property in Door.No.11-26-3 of Uppulurivari Street, Vijayawada to an extent of 410 sq.yds in favour of the petitioner for assessment of Municipal tax IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to mutate the property to an extent of 410 sq.yds. in D.No.11-26-3 Uppulurivari Street, Vijayawada in fvour of the petitioner forthwith by suspending the endorsement RC.A2,114335/2024 dt.26.09.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 2. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on part of the 2nd respondent in mutating the name of the petitioner in the municipal records. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner had inherited the subject land from his grandfather and accordingly, submitted an application for mutating his name in the municipal records. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent rejected the petitioner’s request for mutation vide proceedings dated 120.06.2025. The reason assigned is that the 2nd respondent could not trace the title of the petitioner to an extent of 100 Sq. yards out of 410 Sq. Yards. Thereafter, the impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2025 were issued, calling upon the petitioner to produce the registered rectification deed for the 100 Sq. yards, which was excluded in the will executed in favour of the adopted son Sri P. Narasimharao (i.e., father of the petitioner) by P. Guravaiah while registering the will for 310 Sq. yards. The petitioner has also called upon to submit the death certificates of his grandparents. 4. Sri S.V.S.S. Srivaram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that there was a discrepancy with regard to the flow of title and that as seen from the will dated 16.09.1946, an extent of 310 Sq. yards was gifted to one P. Narasimharao. Subsequently, 4 P. Narasimharao gifted the land admeasuring 410 Sq. yards to the petitioner, as such, the rectification deed was required for mutating the petitioner’s name in the revenue records. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply submits that the petitioner’s grandfather gifted 100 Sq. yards of the land on the name of his grandmother and after her demise, the same was devolved on petitioner’s father, subsequently executed the will in favour of the petitioner. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. The impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2025, calling upon the petitioner to submit rectification deed for the land of an extent of 100 Sq. yards is meaningless. The 3rd respondent is aware that the petitioner’s father and grandfather are not alive and rectification deed cannot be executed and submitted at any stretch of imagination. That apart, the 2nd respondent is required to verify whether there is any title to the property for which mutation is being sought. It is not the look out by the 2nd respondent to confer and trace the title from 1940 onwards. The endorsement dated 25.08.2025, issued to the petitioner is hereby set aside. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to mutate the name of the petitioner by reconsidering his application dated 20.09.2024 without reference to submission of any additional documents such as the rectification deed or submission of death certificate(s) of the grandparents of the petitioner. 5 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 02.12.2025 SCH 6 62 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Writ Petition No.33181 of 2025 Date: 02.12.2025 SCH