Ambadipudi Durgamma v. The State Of A.P., Rep. By Its Principal Secretary,

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.41955 of 2015 Dated 28.12.2015 Between:

Ambadipudi Durgamma ... Petitioner and The State of A.P., Rep. by its Prl.Secretary Municipal Admin. & Urban Development Dept., Hyderabad, and 3 others.

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Ramana Allu Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Municipal Administration (AP) Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.R.Sudheer, SC for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (name to be shown subject to his filing vakalat within three days.) The Court made the following:

O r d e r :

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 30-08-2014, for mutation of

her name in place of respondent No.4 in respect of property bearing Door No.41-28/3-64, Ranigari Thota, Patamata, Vijayawada (for short 'the subject Property') in the municipal records.

From the averments of the petitioner, it appears that there is a serious dispute between herself and respondent No.4, who is her brother, over succession to the subject property. On respondent No.4 approaching respondent No.2 after the death of their mother- Vemu Atchamma, the former's name was mutated in the municipal records.

It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that Vemu Atchamma has executed a registered will during her lifetime, on 18.03.2006, bequeathing the subject property in her favour and that on coming to know about the mutation of the name of respondent No.4 in the municipal records, she has submitted a representation, on 30-08-2014, under Receipt No.2014-TDC-141578 to respondent No.2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has neither considered her representation nor taken any decision thereon.

After hearing Mr.A.Ramana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.R.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2- Corporation, I am of the opinion that as the grievance of the petitioner is innocuous, it will suffice if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to dispose of her representation.

Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 3008-2014, if the same has been received by his office, hold an enquiry after notice to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4, take a decision thereon and communicate the same to both parties within six weeks from the date of receipt of the same.

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.54119 of 2015, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 28th December, 2015

LUR