Chittireddy Narasimha Reddy vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 581 Tel

Telangana High Court

Chittireddy Narasimha Reddy vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 April, 2026

        IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                        AT HYDERABAD

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

                           W.P.No.8207 OF 2014

                              DATE: 09.04.2026

Between:

Chittireddy Narasimha Reddy
                                                                   ... Petitioner
                                   and
The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Municipal Administration,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others
                                                                ... Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India

seeking the following relief:

".....to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent not considering the request of the petitioner to issue notice and opportunity to the petitioner before mutating the name of the 3rd respondent in municipal records in respect of 245 sq.yards in Sy.No.1112 in Ward No.2 of Market Street, Parkal Village, as intentional, illegal, malafidy and contrary to the municipal rules and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue notice to the petitioner before taking any action for mutation of 3rd respondent name in records and to pass such other order or orders........."

2. Heard Ms.Dania Danish Khan, learned counsel representing

Mr.K.Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Krishna

Reddy Putta, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2

and Mr.S.Sudershan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 &

4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that once a

representation is filed seeking an opportunity of hearing and to look at

the objection of the petitioner, it is bounden duty of respondent No.2 to

give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by considering his

representation before mutating the names of respondents 3 and 4 in the

municipal records.

4. Learned Standing counsel would contend that as on today, no

mutation proceedings have been affected in the municipal records by

incorporating the names of respondents 3 and 4.

5. In that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent is directed to

adhere to the procedure envisaged under the Telangana Municipality

Act, 2019 and consider the objection of the petitioner before mutating

the names of respondents 3 and 4 in the municipal records by giving an

opportunity of hearing both to the petitioner as well as respondents 3

and 4.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to

costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

_______________________________________ JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Date: 09.04.2026 dv

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

W.P.No.8207 OF 2014

09.04.2026

dv