AFZAL BHEE Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court ordered notice before admission on 22.11.2006. Sri Polisetti Radhakrishna, learned standing counsel had taken notice on behalf of R-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out urgent notice to R- 2, R-3 and R-4. It is stated that R-2, R-3 and R-4 had been served. It is also stated by Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, representing K.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel that Sri K.Venkata Reddy had entered appearance on behalf of respondents 2, 3 and 4.

(2.) Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would submit that in the event of mutation proceedings being left untouched, there is every possibility of clearance for construction permission to respondents 2, 3 and 4 to further proceed with the construction and inasmuch as the petitioner being the absolute owner of the property in question, she will be put to serious loss.

(3.) On the contrary Sri Polisetti Radhakrishna, learned counsel representing the first respondent would submit that as far as mutation proceedings are concerned under Rule 7 of the Alteration of Ownership of Property in Assessment Books Rules, 1966, as against the order made by the commissioner, an appeal shall lie to the council. The counsel also would submit that inasmuch as it is stated that such orders were not served on the petitioner and she came to know about the same by virtue of a caveat lodged, even now the petitioner may be permitted to present appropriate appeals to the council concerned.