Pethakamsetti Narsinga Rao S/O.Late Varahalu v. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ******** WRIT PETITION NO.25293 of 2015 Between :

Pethakamsetti Narsinga Rao, S/o.Late Varahalu, Aged about 76 yrs, R/o.33-14-261, Allipuram Main Road, Visakhapatnam-530004.

.. Petitioner and Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Asilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam & another.

.. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 12.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes / No may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes / No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : Yes / No see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.25293 of 2015 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not taking action on the representations of the petitioner regarding mutation of his name in the Municipal records.

3. The petitioner claims that the property admeasuring Ac.16.72 cents of land in several survey numbers including Sy.No.46/6, Maddilapalem, Bhanunagar, Division No.10, Zone No.2, Visakhapatnam, originally belonged to the maternal grand father of the petitioner and he executed a will deed dated 08.08.1954 and bequeathed this property in favour of the petitioner and got it registered vide document dated 16.08.1954. After the demise of his grand father the petitioner succeeded to the above property and executed two registered sale deeds to two different persons. The petitioner further claims that he sold 200 square yards to one Budda Ramadas and another 200 Square yards to one P.Narasimha Murthy.

The said Ramadas entered into an agreement of sale in respect of another extent of 235 square yards, but without paying full consideration to him, he has sold away the same to two other persons through registered sale deeds. Thereafter several civil suits were instituted and finally, the petitioner was put in possession of the land to an extent of 235 square yards. However, the vendee of Budda Ramadas Mr.

to be owner. The petitioner submitted a representation on 14.12.2013, and several reminders were also submitted to the respondents. He further claims that a legal notice was issued on 01.08.2014, and recently another representation was also submitted on 27.06.2015 along with all documents, for mutation of his name in the municipal records. But as there was no response from the respondents and so far no orders are passed, the petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition.

4. When the matter is taken up, both counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to expeditiously dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders as warranted under law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. No costs. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed. __________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 12th August, 2015.

Rds