Telangana High Court
Y. Nagamallesawar Rao vs State Of Telangana on 30 January, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.2620 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Sri K. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the
record.
2. In view of the nature of relief sought by the
petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the
admission stage dispensing with notice to respondent
No.4.
3. Petitioner is claiming that he has purchased a Flat
bearing No.505, Srinidhi Towers, bearing door No.15-24-
314/2/29, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad from respondent
No.4. Respondent No.4 is not receiving the balance sale
consideration and also not executing a registered sale
deed in his favour. Therefore, he has filed a suit in
O.S.No.1081 of 2002 against respondent No.4 seeking
KL,J
W.P.No.2620 of 2025
specific performance of agreement of sale. The same was
dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, he has preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.41 of 2008
and the same was also dismissed. He has also filed
Second Appeal vide S.A.No.955 of 2016 and this Court
admitted S.A. and it is pending before this Court. His
name was also mutated in the Revenue records. He has
been paying property tax to the GHMC. In proof of the
same, he has filed copies of all the aforesaid taxes. He is
in possession of the said property.
4. While the matter stood thus, on the complaint
submitted by one Mr.Satyanarayana, respondent No.3
has issued a notice dated 30.12.2024 stating that the
said Mr.Satyanarayana is the General Power of Attorney
holder of respondent No.4 firm and he has stated that
petitioner obtained mutation proceedings without
registering the Flat by way of mis-representation.
Therefore, respondent No.3 requested the petitioner to
KL,J
attend for enquiry along with all relevant documents on
04.01.2025.
5. According to the petitioner, he has attended the
enquiry on 04.01.2025 before respondent No.3 and also
submitted reply dated 15.01.2025 to respondent No.3. He
has also submitted one more representation dated
04.01.2025 to respondent No.3 with a request to grant 10
days to furnish documents. Without considering the
same, respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated
20.01.2025 deleted the name of the petitioner from the
Municipal records in respect of the subject Flat stating
that petitioner failed to submit documents as sought by
respondent No.3 even after lapse of 16 days time. In fact,
the said ground on which respondent No.3 has deleted
the name of the petitioner is factually incorrect.
6. As stated supra, petitioner is contending that he
has attended before respondent No.3 in the enquiry
conducted on 04.01.2025 pursuant to the notice, dated
KL,J
30.12.2024. He has also submitted a representation
dated 04.01.2025 to respondent No.3 with a request to
grant 10 days to furnish documents. Thereafter he has
submitted documents on 15.01.2025. Without
considering the said aspects, vide proceedings dated
20.01.2025 respondent No.3 deleted the name of the
petitioner herein from the Municipal records. Therefore,
the same is non-consideration of the aforesaid aspects
including pendency of Second Appeal.
7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ
Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned
proceedings dated 20.01.2025 issued by respondent No.3
and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.3
with a direction to pass orders afresh by putting the
petitioner and respondent No.4 on notice and affording
them an opportunity of hearing. He shall also consider
the pendency of the aforesaid Second Appeal. He shall
complete the said exercise within a period of four (04)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
KL,J
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit an
application to respondent No.3 seeking copy of the
complaint submitted by Mr.Satyanarayana, General
Power of Attorney holder of respondentNo.4. On receipt of
the said application, respondent No.3 shall furnish the
same. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to submit
additional explanation to respondent No.3 and
respondent No.3 shall also consider the same. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
January 30, 2025
PN
KL,J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
January 30, 2025
PN
