1 APHC010217522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 11987/2026 Between: 1. DWARAPUDI LAKSHMI, W/O SIVAJEE, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 12-4-8 (10), FLAT NO. G7 SMPP PALACE, RING ROAD, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 531001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPALITY AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.522237 2. THE ANAKAPALLI MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 531001 3. KONATHALA KRISHNA, S/O SANYASAYYA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 9-4-3J4/2, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, JOGAVANIPALEM, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, 530026 4. SARISA SIVA GANESWARARAO, S/O APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 4-85, THIMMARAJUPETA, MADYA VEEDHI, RAJA GARI VEEDI MUNAGAPAKA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, 531033 5. KATTOJI VENKATA NOOKA RATNAM, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 12-4-8 (10), FLAT NO. G7, SMPP PALACE, RING ROAD, ANAKAPALLI,ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.531001 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. P NANILU NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Goli GVS Sai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The facts on record would indicate that the Writ Petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the subject property through two Registered Sale Deeds dated 14.04.1982 and 22.04.1989; that the Respondent No.5, who is the daughter of the Writ Petitioner, had availed loan from South India Bank, Gajuwaka Branch by showing the property belonging to the Writ Petitioner as a security; that on account of the default committed by the daughter of the Writ Petitioner (Respondent No.5), South India Bank initiated recovery proceedings and had succeeded in bringing the said property to auction; that the auction was conducted and Respondent Nos.3 & 4 herein are declared as successful bidders and the bank had issued Sale Certificate in favour of Respondent Nos.3 & 4. 3. It is further submitted by the Writ Petitioner that she had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam against the proceedings initiated by the South India Bank and the Writ Petitioner had also approached the Civil Court seeking for declaration of title in favour of the Writ Petitioner. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing during the recovery proceedings initiated by the South India Bank or in the auction proceedings. 4. Admittedly, the Writ Petitioner stood as a guarantor and therefore, the Bank had initiated the recovery proceedings against the Writ Petitioner and brought such house, in which the Writ Petitioner was residing, for auction. Public auction is conducted, wherein Respondent Nos.3 & 4 were declared as 3 successful bidders and that after completing the formalities of payment of the bid amount, the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 were granted Sale Certificate. 5. Under these facts, this Court is of the opinion that when once the Sale Certificate is granted to Respondent Nos.3 & 4, the logical consequences such as mutation of names of the Unofficial Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in the Municipal Record is a natural corollary. In the event that the Writ Petitioner succeeds in the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Civil Court (no particulars are furnished by the Writ Petitioner in this regard), only then, the Petitioner would have a right to mutate her name in the Municipal Record and till such time, the Petitioner has no right to do so. In any case, the Petitioner always has the right to seek appropriate relief before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam or the Civil Court, as the case may be, which would be considered on the merits of the cases before the respective fora. Under such facts and circumstances, a Writ Court would be loath in interfering in the issues which have attained finality and would not confer any such right merely because certain proceedings initiated by such party are pending before the Courts, until and unless the party is able to show any evidence that the Tribunal or the Civil Court had granted any Temporary Injunction. 6. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Needless to state that at this stage, the Petitioner has no right to resist mutation on the ground that litigation is pending. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:29.04.2026 Vns