APHC010063692024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 4124 OF 2024 Between: Sk. Fathima Bee @ Sk. Mamola Jan, W/o. Late Sk. Abdul Sattar, aged about 83 years, D.No.22/5/3, Halthaliyam Street, Nellore, Nellore District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of M. A. and U.D., Secretariat, VelagapudI, Amaravathi, Guntur Dist. The Nellore Municipal Corporation, Rep. By its Commissioner, Nellore, Nellore District. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Division, APSPDCL, S.E Office, Nellore, Nellore District. Sk Kurshid, W/o. Sk. Basha, aged about 54, D.No.25-1/1185, Pragathi Nagar, Nellore Municipality, Nellore District. 2. 3. 4. ...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 Writ, order or orders specially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in deleting the petitioner name and mutating the 4th respondent name in the records i.e.. property tax assessment No. 1031042527 in an extent of 8 >2 Ankanalu or 68 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.1933 of D.No. 1188/21 Ward No.25, Pragathi Nagar, Nellore and also in the electricity power service No.3311205055118 and 3311205300089 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequential direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider my representations dated 16-12-2023, 02-01-2024 and 04-01-2024 in restore the petitioner name and continue the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider representations dated 16-12-2023, 02-01-2024, and 04-01-2024 to restore the petitioner name in the records of property tax assessment No. 1031042527 in an extent of 8 1/2 Ankanalu or 68 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.1933 of D.No. 1188/21 Ward No.25, Pragathi Nagar, Nellore and also in the electricity power service No.3311205055118 and S.No.3311205300089 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DAGGUBATI RAMASWAMY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA (SC FOR APSPDCL) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI SARANU PHANI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent N0.I: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV The Court made the following order; 1 APHC010063692024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF ___ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO; 4124/2094 PRADESH [3460] JULY vijay Between: Sk. Fathima Bee @ Sk. Mamola Jan -PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.DAGGUBATI RAMASWAMY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.AS C BOSE 2. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL 3.SARANU PHANI TEJA 4.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN The Court made the following: -RESPONDENT(S) DEVAP 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P. No.4124 of 2024 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondents No.2 and 3 in deleting the name of the Petitioner and mutating the name of Respondent No.4 in the records i.e., property tax assessment No. 1031042527 in an extent of 8 1/2 Ankanalu or 68 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.1933 of D.No. 1188/21 Ward No.25, Pragathi Nagar, Nellore and also in the electricity power service Nos.3311205055118 and 3311205300089, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the Petitioner is that the above mentioned property was originally owned by Smt Sk. Dilshad. Thereafter, the same property transferred to the Respondent No.4 under a registered Settlement Deed dated 02.02.2006 vide Document No.1089/2006. Subsequently, Respondent No.4 executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri llliyaz 30.04.2007 vide document No.12294. The G.P.A. Holder/Sri llliyaz is the son of the Petitioner. 1. 2. was on Subsequently, a Sale Deed was executed by Sri llliyaz in favour of the Petitioner on 06.03.2013 vide document No.3212 of 2013 for the subject property. Thereafter, the name of the Petitioner was incorporated in the Municipal Property Tax Register and the same was continued till 2023. While so, the Respondent No.4 submitted an application to mutate her name in the Municipal Property Tax Register in place of the Petitioner. Taking note of the same, the Respondent Municipal Corporation, mutated the name of the Respondent No.4 in the Municipal records. As the mutation of the name of Respondent No.4 was without any notice, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. ^' 3 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a cursory look of the Sale Deed would establish the title in favour of the Petitioner and that there is no challenge to the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner. It is further contended that the action of the Respondent Municipal Corporation in mutating the name of the Respondent No.4 in the Municipal Property Tax Register without prior notice cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 filed Counter Affidavit contending that the mutation in favour of the Respondent No.4 was done pursuant to the legal opinion taken by the Respondent Municipal Corporation. 5. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 contended that the registered G.P.A said to have been executed by the Respondent No.4 is a fabricated document and the Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioner cannot be sustained on the basis of such fabricated document. He further contended that RCC No. 12 of 2016 was filed by the Petitioner and the same was dismissed on account of the Petitioner’s inability to establish the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties and the same was confirmed in appeal filed thereon vide RCA No.2 of 2021, which was dismissed on 17.08.2021. The counsel contends that dismissal of the Rent Control case would establish the lack of genuineness of the documents relied upon by the Petitioner. 7. Heard the arguments of respective counsel. It is not in dispute that the name of the Petitioner was incorporated in the Municipal Property Tax Register in the year 2014 and the same was continued till 2023 and all through, the Petitioner was paying property tax with regard to the subject property. It is quite rudimental that before alteration of the name in the said Property Tax Register, Notice should have been given to 8. 0^ 4 the Petitioner and after examining her objections, appropriate orders could have been passed. Secondly, the contention of the Respondent No.4 that the registered G.P.A. is a fabricated document and consequently the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner cannot sustain and it is a ground which would be open to him to be urged in a properly constituted suit seeking for cancellation of the said ; documents under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act or for any other appropriate relief. In the absence of any challenge to the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner by way of Civil Suit, it is not open to the Respondent No.4 to question the registered Sale Deed standing in the name of the Petitioner. 9. 10. Thirdly, the rejection of Rent Control cases filed by the Petitioner would not be of relevance for deciding the title to the property as in a Rent Control case, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant has to be primarily established for invocation of the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court. If the said jurisdictional requirement is not established, then the Rent Control Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the Rent Control case and the rejection on account of lack of landlord and tenant jural relationship would not in any way be determinative to the title to the property. Therefore, the action of the Respondent No.2 in mutating the name of Respondent No.4 cannot be sustained. 11. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with following directions; i) The Respondent Corporation shall restore the name of the Petitioner in the municipal property tax register and electricity connections with regard to property bearing Assessment No. 1031042527 and in electricity connection bearing Nos.3311205055118 & 3311205300089 forthwith. v 5 ii) No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of M. A. and U.D., Secretariat, VelagapudI, Amaravathi, Guntur Dist. 2. The Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, Nellore District. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Division, APSPDCL, S.E Office, Nellore, Nellore District. 4. One CO to Sri Daggubati Ramaswamy Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri A S C Bose, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota (SC for APSPDCL) Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Saranu Phani Teja, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admn. & Urban Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:10/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 4124 OF 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS