P KESHAVA REDDY Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER MANCHIRYALA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case, in brief, of the petitioners is that godown bearing Door No.6-3(old) corresponding to new No.6-8 at vegetable market, Manchiryala, Adilabad district was purchased in 1962 under a registered sale deed in the name of the first petitioner as their joint family property and is being let out to third parties on rent. First respondent (Municipality) even without the consent of the first petitioners and even though there is no partition among them and their brother, was issuing tax receipts in respect of the said property in the name of their brother P. Mukunda Reddy, who died on 23.02.1986. After the death of Mukunda Reddy first respondent, even without notice to them (petitioners) mutated the said property in the name of the widow of Mukunda Reddy i.e. third respondent. After coming to know about the said fact, first petitioner had on 08.05.2001 made a representation to the first respondent with all the documents, including the registered sale deeds not to issue tax receipts in the name of P. Mukunda Reddy or his legal heirs, and to mutate the property in his name. Therefore, first respondent addressed a letter to the son of the third respondent, to produce the title deeds, but he did not respond. Even then since first respondent did not take further action, first petitioner filed W.P.No.13017 of 2002 seeking a direction to the first respondent to dispose of his representation dated 08.05.2001, and the same was dismissed at the stage of admission. In the Writ Appeal filed by the first petitioner against that order of dismissal first respondent was directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 08.05.2001 of the first petitioner within a period of six weeks, and consequently first respondent issued proceedings No.992/A1/01-03 dated 05.02.2003 mutating the name of the first petitioner and collected tax and issued a tax receipt for 2002-03 in his name. Thereupon, third respondent filed Appeal No.252 of 2003 to the second respondent (Municipal Council) under Section 345 of A.P. Municipalities Act, challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 05.02.2003. After receipt of notice of the said appeal, first petitioner appeared before the second respondent on 29.09.2003. The case was adjourned to 20.10.2003, when first petitioner filed a detailed counter and the case was adjourned to 11.11.2003. Thereafter, neither, the first petitioner nor his counsel received any communication about the hearing of the appeal. In the meanwhile, in March, 2003, the third respondent seems to have filed W.P.No.6343 of 2004 and sought a direction to the first respondent to dispose of her Appeal No.253 of 2003 expeditiously, and that the same was allowed at the stage of admission, directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Consequently the appeal of the third respondent seems to have been allowed even without notice to the first petitioner and without affording an opportunity of being heard to him, and consequently, the earlier proceedings mutating the property in the name of the first petitioner seems to have been reversed. Hence, this petition questioning the order of the second respondent.

(2.) The case of the first respondent is that premises bearing H.No.6-3 (old) corresponding to 6-8 (new) was mutated in the name of P. Mukunda Reddy and he was paying property tax in respect of that property. On a petition by the first respondent that property was mutated in his name. Against that order in Appeal No.252 of 2003 on 18.08.2003, preferred by third respondent, notices were served on the first petitioner, who appeared and filed his counter affidavit on 20.10.2003. Thereafter, in W.P.No.6343 of 2004 filed by the third respondent a direction was given to the second respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by her within a period of three months. After receipt of that order the appeal was placed before the second respondent, which, after considering the documents and the material on record, passed a resolution allowing the appeal.

(3.) The case of third respondent is that the case set up by the petitioners that the property is joint family property is not true. Since she became entitled to the property, which was mutated in the name of her husband, after the death of her husband, she submitted an application for mutation of the property in her name, and by the proceedings dated 06.02.2002 the property was mutated in her name. While so, she received a caveat petition informing that first respondent passed Orders in proceedings No.992/01-03 dated 05.02.2003 mutating the name of the first petitioner in her place. So she filed Appeal No.252 of 2003. Since the appeal was not heard, she filed a writ petition, in which a direction was given to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.