Sri Ravula Mohan Kumar S/O Late ... vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 914 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                   WRIT PETITION No. 4718 of 2016

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings

No. A5/07966/2015, dated 20.01.2016, whereby the respondent

No. 2, Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, had refused to effect the

mutation of the petitioner's name in respect of property bearing

house No. 6-2-157/15 on Plot No. 15, situated at Subhash Nagar,

Nizamabad and advised him to settle the matter in Court of law.

The petitioner herein is none other than the paternal uncle's

son-in-law of respondent No. 3. The case of the petitioner is that

he is the absolute owner and possessor of the R.C.C. roofed

residential house with open place, constructed on Plot No. 15,

situated at Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad having purchased the

same from his wife, mother-in-law and brother-in-law under a

registered sale deed bearing document No. 4091/2015, dated

04.04.2015. Subsequent to the said purchase, the petitioner made

an application on 11.05.2015 before the Nizamabad Municipal

Corporation, the respondent No. 2 herein, to mutate the property

on his name in the Municipal Records. However, instead of

mutating the property on the name of the petitioner in the records,

the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner orally that the name

of respondent No. 3 is already reflecting in the municipal records

in respect of the said property. On enquiry, the petitioner came to

know that the claim of the respondent No. 3 is based on a

registered gift deed executed by his father Mr. S. Rama Goud, who

is none other than the younger brother of late Narsa Goud, the

father-in-law of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, late

Samala Ganga Goud bequeathed the subject property to his elder

son, Narsa Goud under a notarized will deed, dated 24.06.1995.

On 11.8.2001, Mr. Narsa Goud died leaving the vendors of the

petitioner as his legal heirs apart from Mr. Samala Sunil Kumar.

However, Mr. Sunil Kumar also died and therefore, his share of

property had fallen to the share of the wife of the petitioner,

Mrs. Samala Sirisha, under a notarized family settlement deed,

dated 17.09.2012 and 26.10.2012. Thus, the vendors of the

petitioner, who are none other than the legal representatives of

late Sri Narsa Goud, being the absolute owners of the subject

property, had executed the registered sale deed in favour of the

petitioner.

However, Mr. Rama Goud, the younger brother of Narsa

Goud, had obtained a family member certificate from Tahsildar,

Velpur Mandal, Nizamabad District by playing fraud, falsely

claiming that he is the only son of late Ganga Goud. Immediately,

the vendors of the petitioner had approached the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Nizamabad and got cancelled the said family

member certificate issued by the Tahsildar, vide proceedings dated

15.06.2015. That even before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mr.

Rama Goud, in written, had reported 'no objection' for cancellation

of the said family member certificate. Disclosing the above said

facts, the petitioner has made a representation, dated 18.06.2015

with the respondent No. 2 to effect the mutation of his name in the

municipal records in respect of the subject property with a request

to cancel the mutation effected in the name of respondent No. 3.

As a result, the respondent No. 2, vide proceedings dated

18.09.2015, cancelled the mutation proceedings issued in favour of

the respondent No. 3, after conducting enquiry. However, the

respondent No. 2, instead of effecting the mutation of the name of

the petitioner in the municipal records, had instructed him as well

as the respondent No. 3 to settle the matter in the court of law.

Again, by duly enclosing all the documents, the petitioner made

another representation to the respondent No. 2 on 13.10.2015.

Through the proceedings, dated 20.01.2016, the respondent No. 2

again refused to mutate the name of the petitioner in the records,

without assigning any reasons.

The respondent No. 2 filed a counter affidavit stating that

since there is a rival claim in respect of the subject property by

both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3, the

Corporation advised both the parties to approach the competent

civil Court, as the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to decide

the civil disputes.

The respondent No. 3 filed a counter affidavit stating that the

subject property being ancestral property, he got a right over the

same and therefore, his name was mutated in the municipal

records. Having fully aware of the existing dispute with regard to

execution of the notarized will, the petitioner got a nominal sale

deed executed by his mother-in-law, wife and brother-in-law on

04.04.2015. Therefore, in view of the rival claim as to the title of

the property, the respondent No. 2 had rightly directed the

petitioner to approach the civil court for adjudication of the

dispute.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that the father of the respondent No. 3, himself had submitted a

notarized affidavit, dated 30.03.2000 to the respondent No. 2 to

the effect that he has no objection to transfer the ownership of the

subject property in favour of his brother, namely late Sri Narsa

Goud, followed by another affidavit, dated 04.06.2001. Even

during the course of enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Nizamabad, Sri Rama Goud gave his deposition to that effect on

13.06.2015. In light of the said affidavits of Rama Goud, the

impugned proceedings issued by respondent No. 2 advising the

petitioner to approach the Court of law to settle the matter is non-

application of mind and against the provisions of the GHMC Act,

1955.

The relevant portion of the impugned order of the respondent

No. 2 reads as under:-

"In this Connection, it is inform (sic.) that one Sri. Mohan Kumar, S/o. Venkataiah has submitted objection petition on dt:- 18.06.2015 for cancellation of above mutation by enclosing copies of 1) Registered Sale Deed No. 4091/2015, Dt:-04.04.2015 executed by Samala Sulochana, W/o. Late S. Narsa Goud i) Ravula Rupa W/o.R. Mohan Kumar, ii) Samala Srikanth S/o. S. Narsa Goud in favour of R. Mohan Kumar S/o. R. Venkataiah, 2) Death Certificate by showing deceased Ganga Goud died on 10-05-1996,

3) Proceedings of RDO, Nizamabad by canceling family member certificate issued by Tahsildar, Velpur in favour of S. Rama Goud.

In view of the legal dispute, Sri. Ravula Mohan Kumar is hereby advised to settled (sic.) the matter in Court of Law."

In view of the rival title dispute over the subject property between

the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 2 has

advised him to approach the civil Court to resolve the dispute,

instead of mutating the name of the petitioner in the municipal

records, as sought for in his application dated 13.10.2015. It is

this order of respondent No. 2 that is sought to be challenged in

the present writ petition.

Admittedly, as seen from the pleadings and the record, the

Municipal Authorities vide proceedings dated 18.08.2015 have

cancelled the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the

respondent No.3 after conducting due enquiry, and the name of

the original owner, Sri Narsa Goud, was restored. This order,

dated 18.08.2015, has become final as the same was not

challenged by any person much less the respondent No.3 herein.

When the family members of late Sri Narsa Goud executed the sale

deed in favour of the petitioner and he in turn has filed a

representation to mutate the name of the petitioner, the authorities

have rejected the same on the ground that the respondent No.3

has filed his objection.

A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the

respondent No.2 has lost sight of the fact that the authorities

themselves vide order dated 18.09.2015 have already cancelled the

mutation in favour of the respondent No.3 and the said order had

become final. When such is the case, it is not understandable as to

how the objection of the respondent No.3 can be entertained once

again by the very same authority to reject the application for

mutation in favour of the petitioner. The earlier order of mutation

in favour of respondent No.3 was cancelled after it was revealed in

the enquiry that the very same basis for laying claim to the subject

property by the respondent No.3 i.e., the Legal Heir Certificate

issued by the Tahsildar in favour of the respondent No.3 was

obtained by fraud and the Tahsildar has cancelled the said Legal

Heir Certificate on the representation of the petitioner. If the

respondent No.3 has any claim to the property, his remedy is to

approach the Civil Court and seek a suitable remedy as available

under the law. Once the Legal Heir Certificate issued by the

Tahsildar is set aside, he has no other document to prove that he

has any right or title over the property, which admittedly is in the

name of Late Sri Narsa Goud. This crucial fact was lost sight by

the authorities and on an erroneous appreciation of facts and law,

the application of the petitioner was rejected, which act/order

cannot be countenanced. The authorities cannot reject the

application for mutation of a family member on the objection filed

by all and sundry. When the immediate family members of late Sri

Narsa Goud do not have any objection for mutation in the name of

the petitioner and as they themselves have executed a registered

sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the authorities should have

mutated the petitioner's name instead of rejecting the application

only on the ground that the respondent No.3 has filed his

objections.

As held by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in a catena of judgments, mere mutation of name of a person will

not divest the original owner of his title or right. If the respondent

No.3 has any claim, his remedy is to file a civil suit for an

appropriate remedy as available under the law, but he cannot file

an objection petition for mutating the name of the petitioner, once

an adverse order is passed against him and the same has become

final. If the objections of all and sundry are entertained to reject

the mutation application made by genuine owner or legal

representative, the same this will not only result in anarchy but

also in aiding and abetting the land grabbers and depriving the

legitimate and rightful owners from enjoying their property. The

respondent No. 3 has not even filed a single document to support

his case, but on the other hand, it is an admitted fact that the

property stands in the name of late Narsa Goud and the legal

representatives of Narsa Goud have executed a registered sale deed

in favour of the petitioner and have no objection for mutating his

name in the municipal record. In view of the above mentioned

facts and circumstances, the order of the respondent No.2 cannot

be allowed to stand and the same is liable to be set aside.

For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the

order passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside. Consequently,

the respondent No.2 is directed to mutate the name of the

petitioner in the Municipal Records. However, this order of

mutation will be subject to the result of any suit likely to be filed

by the respondent No.3.

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J

Date: 23.03.2021 Tsr