::1:: APHC010562442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29033/2025 Between: 1. KANDIMALLA THIRUPATHI RAYUDU,, S/O LATE KAMALANABHUDU, AGE 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.7-120 (OLD) 8-172 (NEW), MURIKIPUDI VILLAGE, CHILAKALURIPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522503. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT, NARASARAOPET. 3. THE DISTRICT GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PALNADU DISTRICT, NARASARAOPET. 4. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ::2:: CHILAKALURIPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHILAKALURIPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 7. THE MURIKIPUDI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, CHILAKALURIPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 8. KANDIMALLA BHASKAR, S/O ADI BABU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O D.NO.4-19-130/7, 2ND LANE, VIKAS NAGAR, PATTABHIPURAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 9. KANDIMALLA VIKRAMADITYA, S/O PRITHVI RAJ, AGE MINOR. REP. HIS GUARDIAN KANDIMALLA KUSUMA, 19 W/0 BHASKAR, D.NO.4-19-130/7, 2ND LANE, VIKAS NAGAR PATTABHIPURAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 10. KANDIMALLA KUSUMA, W/O BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, D.NO.4-19-130/7, 2ND LANE, VIKAS NAGAR PATTABHIPURAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR 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 to issue a Writ, Order, Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo vide in Rc.No.637/2025-P2, dated 01.10.2025 of the 3rd respondent, wherein he directed the respondent Nos.6 and 7 to implement the legal opinion of Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayats Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to change the name of Tirupathi Rayudu (petitioner herein), S/o Kamalanabhudu and raise Demand Notice of House Tax in the name of Kandimalla Vikramaditya, S/o Kandimalla Prithvi Raj and his guardian Kandimalla Kusuma (who are the 9 and l0th respondents ::3:: herein) as per rules in force and send the action taken report to this office within 05 days is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and competency and unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14,21 and 300Aof the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions contemplated under AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and its Rules there under and also contrary to the proceedings of the Civil Court in OS.No.280/2025 on the file of the Hon ble Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet and besides violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to set aside the impugned memo vide in Rc.No.637/2025-P2, dated 01.10.2025 of the 3rd respondent and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3. Sri ANCHA PANDU RANGA RAO, (5667) – Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.8 to 10 ::4:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.29033 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned Standing Counsel for Respdnent Nos.5 to 7 and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.8 to 10. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house property bearing Door No.8-172, Assessment No.1572, situated at Murikipudi Village, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Palnadu District. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house property since long time and his name was mutated as owner of the subject house property and he has been paying taxes regularly to the 7th Respondent – Gram Panchayat without any default. 3. While things stood thus, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, on the representation of the 8th respondent dated 11.08.2025 the ::5:: 3rd Respondent herein issued impugned proceedings dated 01.10.2025 without following due process of law as contemplated under the Rules relating to “Certain taxes and lodging of moneys received by the Gram Panchayats and payment of money from Gram Panchayat Fund (G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.01.1995) [for short “Rules, 1995]. He further contended that the impugned proceedings were issued directing the executive authority and Panchayat Secretary to delete the name of the petitioner and mutate the name of the Respondent Nos.8 and 10 as owners of the subject house property is contrary to the Rules, 1995 and also to a civil suit which is pending between the petitioner and unofficial respondents. He further contended that the impugned proceedings passed by the 3rd Respondent are without jurisdiction, as such the impugned proceedings liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents submits that as per Rule 35 of Rules, 1995 as stated above, the 3rd and 4th respondents and the Extension Officer (Panchayats) having jurisdiction, shall also exercise the powers of executive authority referred to in these rules in so far as they relate to the collection of taxes. It is further explained that the assessment register for collection taxes against the house property ::6:: is should be in accordance with rules as stated above. In the instant case, the collection of house tax in respect of any house should be from the rightful owner of the subject house property. The rules further contemplates for amendment and mutation of rightful title holders as owners of their respective house property, basing upon the proof of title through title deeds and other evidences the executive authority is the competent authority and empowered to do so after observing the principles of natural justice as well as due process as contemplated. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.8 to 10 reiterated that the contentions of learned Standing Counsel and further stated that petitioner himself participated in the enquiry conducted by the 3rd Respondent and submitted his documents and filed his material what-so-ever at his level best to prove his title in respect of the subject house property. Similarly, the Respondent Nos.8 to 10 also submitted their documents and to prove their title through documents before the 3rd Respondent, after having considered all the documents as well after having detailed enquiry with the concerned authorities, passed the impugned order after compliance of principles of natural justice as well as due process ::7:: as contemplated under the Rules, 1995. Hence, the impugned order does not warrant any interference of this Hon’ble Court. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for un- official respondents and perused the material placed on record. It appears that as per the Tax Assessment Records / Register the petitioner is the owner of the subject house property and it is further observed that the unofficial respondent Nos.8 to 10 submitted their representation to the Respondent No.3 seeking for alteration or modification of assessment register in respect of the subject house property by claiming that they are real owners of the subject house property. It seems that the 3rd Respondent conducted detailed enquiry and after having enquiry he issued notices to the petitioner as well as Respondent Nos.8 to 10 herein. In pursuance of the notices, the petitioner as well as Respondent Nos.8 to 10 submitted their documents and substantiated their respective claims and ownership rights in respect of the subject house property. After having considered the submissions as well as documents and claims of the petitioner as well as Respondent Nos.8 to 10, the 3rd Respondent who has jurisdiction passed impugned order under Rule 35, 1995. ::8:: 7. It is further observed that the 3rd Respondent while passing the impugned order specifically directed the Panchayat Secretary who is the Executive Authority to mutate the name of unofficial Respondents in respect of the subject house property in accordance with Rules, 1995. 8. In view of the reasons and observations made as above, this Court is considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the Panchayat Secretary to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the orders of the 3rd Respondent after issuing notices to the petitioner as well as Respondents while amending or making alterations in respect of the subject tax register by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to both parties within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Dt: 17.10.2025 krk ::9:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.29033 of 2025 DT: 17.10.2025 krk 138