APHC010504422022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31466/2022 Between: 1. MANKU MUNEMMA, W/O. ULLARAYYA, AGED 52 YEARS, 1-38, RACHA GUNNARI VILLAGE, KAPU GUNNERI POST, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOR DISTRICT AT TIRUPATHI. 3. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT TIRUPATHI. 4. MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PANAGAL, SRIKALAHASTI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. THE RACHA GUNNARI PANCHAYAT, REP-BY ITS SECRETARY, RACHA GUNNARI VILLAGE, SRIKALAHASTI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SRIKALAHSTHI RURAL POLICE STATION, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 7. CHEKURI JANSI LAKSHMI, W/O. GOVINDA NAIDU, AGED 52 YRS, HOUSE NO.10/100/A, DODLAMITLA VILLAGE, BC COLONY, KARAKAMBADI POST, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR p. 2 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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents, particularly the 5th respondent in collecting house tax from the 7th respondent from my house property bearing Assessment No. 49 situated in Racha Gunnari Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, .Chittoor District without considering my representations dated 22.04.2022, as illegal, irregular, irrational and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore my name in the said my house property assessment No. 49 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to restore my name in the my house property assessment No. 49 situated in Racha Gunnari Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District by deleting the 7th respondent name, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 to consider my representations dated 22.04.2022, thereby requesting to restore my name in the my house property assessment No. 49 situated in Racha Gunnari Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District by deleting the 7th respondent name, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass 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 to grant leave to the Petitioner/ respondent No.5 to file the counter affidavit Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DHANUNJAYA BARU Counsel for the Respondent(S): p. 3 1. CHAMARTHY LEELA SRINNIVASA VARMA 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri Shaik Altaf, learned counsel representing Sri Dhanuyaja Baru, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1 to 3, Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the 6th respondent and Sri C.Leela Srinnivasa Varma, learned counsel for the 7th respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the 6th respondent in collecting house tax from the 7th respondent in relation to Assessment No.49, Racha Gunnari Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District, without considering the petitioner’s representation dated 22.04.2022, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house with Assessment No.49 of Racha Gunnari Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner purchased the said property from Sri Gnannagari Ramanaiah S/o. Ramanaiah @ Jayaramaiah, through a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.1337 of 2016 dated 22.04.2016 has been in possession and enjoyment of the house. Due to family necessities, the petitioner executed a registered possession deed vide Doc.No.530 of 2016 dated 21.05.2016, in favour of the Arigonda Aruna Jyothi W/o. Chandra Sekhar. The petitioner obtained an electricity connection in the name of her daughter and son-in-law and has been paying electricity consumption charges. Page 4 of 8 4. Be that as it may, the 6th respondent called the petitioner at the instance of the 7th respondent to the Police Station and got signatures on the empty non-judicial stamp papers. The petitioner made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police against the 6th respondent and also filed W.P.No.17100 of 2022. The 7th respondent, taking advantage of the signed empty non-judicial papers, approached the respondents 4 and 5. The respondents 4 and 5, in turn, started collecting taxes from the 7th respondent. No prior notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondents 4 and 5. The 5th respondent issued an intimation notice dated 26.01.2021 to the petitioner stating that the 7th respondent paid the house tax on 15.09.2020 for the Assessment No.49. 5. The 7th respondent filed a counter-affidavit, contended, inter alia, that the 7th respondent purchased the said property from the owners on 21.11.1999, by way of a sale letter. The 5th respondent, on verification, mutated the name of the 7th respondent and has been collecting taxes. The 7th respondent filed suit O.S.No.444 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, against G.Ramanaiah and others, seeking specific performance and consequential permanent injunction. The petitioner, by playing fraud, obtained a tax receipt on 24.12.2020, from the 5th respondent. Therefore, the 5th respondent cancelled the tax receipt through the office notice dated 26.01.2021. 6. A separate counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, contending, inter alia, that an Ad-interim injunction was granted in suit O.S.No.444 of 2022 filed by the 7th respondent restraining the defendants 1 to 5 from alienating the schedule property. The Gram Panchayat received tax from the 7th respondent, and the 7th respondent owns the house property. 7. No rejoinder was filed by the petitioner. Page 5 of 8 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contents as per the averments made in the affidavit and the counter-affidavits. 9. Thus, as seen from the representation dated 22.04.2022 (Ex.P1), the petitioner purchased the house bearing D.No.1-38 on 22.04.2016 from G.Ramanaiah. Thereafter, the petitioner mortgaged the property vide Ex.P5 dated 21.05.2016. The 7th respondent filed suit O.S.No.444 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, against G.Ramanaiah and others seeks specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 21.11.1991, in respect of five items. 10. Sri C.Leela Srinnivasa Varma, learned counsel for the 7th respondent, would submit that the scheduled property in the suit and the property mentioned in Ex.P4 document are the same. He would also submit that an ad- interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.1183 of 2022 in O.S.No.444 of 2022, restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any encumbrance to others. The material papers are filed along with the counter-affidavit of the 7th respondent. The 7th respondent has been paying taxes; the Gram Panchayat issued receipts to that effect. 11. Thus, as seen from the pleadings in the documents available before the Court, the petitioner has been claiming ownership by way of Ex.P4, whereas the 7th respondent has filed suit O.S.No.444 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, against G.Ramanaiah and others seeking specific performance. Mere collection of the tax by the Gram Panchayat will not confer title on either the petitioner or the 7th respondent. The collection of the tax is only for fiscal purposes. The counter filed on behalf of the 5th respondent – Gram Panchayat discloses that the authority received the tax from the 7th respondent and that the 7th respondent possesses the house property. p. 6 12. Thus, there exists a serious dispute regarding the title between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. It is a settled position of law that disputed questions of fact normally shall not be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The view of the court is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court. 13. In Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil1, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petitions in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and, also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority.” 14. No cogent material is placed before this Court to show that the petitioner's name was mutated in the Panchayat records. Since the 7th respondent already instituted a suit against the owners of the property, and the same is pending before the competent Civil Court, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court and get the dispute resolved. p. 7 1 (2010) 8 SCC 329 15. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. The observations, if any, made in the order, will not influence the Civil Court during the trial of the suit. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 11.03.2026 SNI p. 8 238 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.31466 of 2022 Dated: 11.03.2026 SNI