GUMMADI SHASHI REKHA Vs. COMMISSIONER, GHMC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chatla Madhu, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the entire property previously was joint family property, held in the name of Karta Sri G.Shanker Reddy, who is the father of the petitioner's husband i.e Sri Shankar Reddy, who died on 17/2/1996 and the wife of Sri Shankar Reddy i.e. Smt G.Rajmani died on 16/12/2000. The petitioner's husband " " Sri G.Pandu Reddy @ G.Pandu Ranga Reddy acquired house property bearing Municipal No.2/9/102 admeasuring 224.36 sq. yards situated at Buttonguda, Macha Bolaram, Alwal Municipality, Medchal Taluq, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District towards his share from the ancestral property. The petitioner's husband Pandu Ranga Reddy bequeathed the said property in petitioners favour under a Gift Deed bearing document No.318/1, dtd. 1/2/2011. After becoming the owner of the subject property, the petitioner approached the respondent herein on 3/6/2011 for mutation of the petitioner's name in the municipal records by putting up proper application along with annexures as is required. On 28/6/2011, the respondent has issued notice calling upon the petitioner to submit the death certificate, family members' certificate of Sri G.Shankar Reddy and also no objection affidavit of the family members of late G.Shankar Reddy. The petitioner has given reply to the said notice on 17/7/2011 stating that as all the other family members of late G.Shankar Reddy are residing separately, the petitioner is unable to submit the family member certificate and no objection affidavit of other members of the family, but however, the petitioner submitted death certificate of late G.Shankar Reddy. The case of the petitioner further is that in spite of specific application made by the petitioner on 3/6/2011, the respondent did not pass any order of refusal, but instead called upon the petitioner for the documents to be submitted are otherwise are not relevant for the mutation of the property and finally the petitioner received the impugned order vide No. A2/CSC/26052/2011-12, dtd. 6/3/2012 observing as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends as follows: