Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 25.06.2026 Date of uploading : 03.07.2026 APHC010238532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12241/2025 Between: 1. R.P. CHUDAMANI,, W/O LATE R.P. PRUDHUVI RAJ, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O, D.NO. 9E/47 KALYANDURGAM TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. KALYANADURGAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KALYANADURGAM, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KALYANADURGAM MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. E N JAYARAMULU, S/O. LATE E. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-88, FORT STREET, KALYANDURG, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5. E SAI CHARAN, S/O. E.N. JAYARAMULU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-88, FORT STREET, KALYANDURG, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 6. E SAI KIRAN, S/O. E.N. JAYARAMULU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-88, FORT STREET, KALYANDURG, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 7. E RAMA KUMARI, W/O. LATE E. THIPPASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-88, FORT STREET, KALYANDURG, ANANTAPURAMU 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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents especially the Respondent No.2 herein, in passing the proceedings vide No. 264/2024/A1 dated 02.11.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and contrary to 2 the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities, Act, 1965 and consequently set aside the proceedings No. 264/2024/A1 dated 02.11.2024 issued by the Respondent no. 2 against the petitioner 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 pleased to suspend the operation and implementation of the impugned orders bearing Roc. No. 264/2024/A1 dated: 02.11.2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent andgrant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 2 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 May be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 26-06-2025 passed in W.P. No. 12241 of 2025 and dismiss the main case with exemplary costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. D.SHYAM SUNDER 3. GP FOR REVENUE 4. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.12241 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 02.01.2024 issued by respondent No.2, whereby the name of respondent No.4 was mutated in the municipal records as the owner of the subject property. It is submitted that the petitioner has instituted O.S. No. 45 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapur, challenging the claim of respondent Nos.5 and others. It is further submitted that urgent notice has been issued in the said suit. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned proceedings by going into the aspect of the issue of title and the same is pending before the Civil Court. It is contended that, when the issue of title is already pending consideration in O.S. No. 45 of 2025, respondent No. 2 ought not to have determined the rights of the parties based on the legal opinion obtained from the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2. 3. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 26.06.2025, suspended the operation of the impugned proceedings for a period of eight weeks and permitted respondent No.2-Municipality to collect the property tax from the petitioner. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit and submits that the matter was referred to the Municipal Standing Counsel, 4 Kalyanadurgam, for legal opinion and also to the Tahsildar, Kalyanadurgam, for verification of the revenue records and the genuineness of the patta documents produced by respondent No. 4. 5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Tahsildar, Kalyanadurgam, has certified that Plot Nos. 6 and 12 in R.S. No. 353/1, Kalyanadurgam, stand in the name of late E. Tippeswamy, who was the original auction purchaser in the year 1939. It is also stated that the Municipal Standing Counsel, Kalyanadurgam, opined that the petitioner's title is defective. Based on the said opinion and verification, the impugned mutation proceedings were issued. 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7 submits that the great-grandfather of respondent No.5 was the original auction purchaser of the property and that respondent Nos.4 to 7 shall establish their right, title and interest before the competent Civil Court during the trial of O.S.No.45 of 2025. Insofar as the grievance of the petitioner against the impugned mutation proceedings is concerned, this Court is of the view that the question of title can only be adjudicated by the Civil Court. Accordingly, the learned trial Court Judge shall independently decide O.S. No. 45 of 2025 on its own merits, without reference to the proceedings issued by the respondent No. 2. 7. The petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 7 shall establish their respective claims of right, title and interest before the learned trial Court. Till the 5 disposal of O.S.No.45 of 2025, the operation of the impugned proceedings dated 02.01.2024 shall remain suspended. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 25.06.2026 KGM Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 6 97 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.12241 of 2025 Dated 25.06.2026 KGM