@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.@mdashThe dispute in this writ petition relates to two residential premises situated at Seelharampuram, Varanasi Street, Vijayawada. The petitioner claims and alleges to be absolute owner of residential premises bearing D. No.30-17-6, which is adjacent to premises No. 30-17-5, in which respondents 6 to 9 are interested either as beneficiaries under a Will or transferees of property under registered Sale Agreements.
2. The residential premises bearing D. No. 30-17-5 is alleged to have been purchased by the sixth respondent herein namely. Garikapati Sujana from Mantharala Mangamma, the ninth respondent herein. It appears that the eighth respondent namely, Garikapati Ravichander, who is the son of the sixth respondent also purchased some property from Manthrala Radhakrishna Murthy, the seventh respondent herein, who is the husband of Manthrala Mangamma. There is a serious dispute as to whether the property purchased by the eighth respondent from the seventh respondent forms part of D. No. 30-17-6 or premises bearing D. No. 30-17-5.
3. After allegedly purchasing the property from their respective vendors (wife and husband) the sixth respondent (mother) and eighth respondent (her son) approached the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, the first respondent herein to club the tax assessments of the two properties being 23149A and 23149B, which were earlier given by the first respondent to the respective properties allegedly purchased by the sixth and eighth respondents under registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney. For the purpose of clarity be it noted that in the property tax registers of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation the residential premises bearing No. 30-17-5 was initially given two assessment Nos.23149A and 23149B. Accepting the request of respondents 6 and 8 the first respondent clubbed the assessment numbers as 23149A duly deleting the assessment No. 23149B.
4. The petitioner, as noticed, is allegedly in possession of the premises bearing No. 30-17-6, which is on the northern side of the premises bearing No. 30-17-5. After coming to know about the clubbing of the assessments, he made a representation to the first respondent on 18-12-2001. He informed the first respondent that Manthrala Radha Krishna Murthy and Manthrala Mangamma arc not the owners of the property, that they are trying to grab the property bearing D. No. 30-17-5 (assessment No. 23149A) by forging the document with the connivance of staff of the Corporation and he requested the first to cancel the mutation proceedings in favour of Sujana, the sixth respondent herein. As there is no response on his representation, he filed the present writ petition praying to set aside the orders of mutation in respect of assessment No. 23149A of Ward No. 26/2.
5. When the matter was listed initially before my learned brother Hon''ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana on 22-2-2002, it was adjourned to enable Sri T.S. Venkataramana, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada to seek instructions. On 27-2-2002 the matter was admitted and this Court ordered status quo existing as on that day to be maintained. A counter-affidavit was filed on 27-3-2002 and the petitioner was given liberty to file reply affidavit. As the petitioner''s title was questioned by the respondents 6 to 9, this Court directed the petitioner to produce the title deed with regard to about 300 Sq.Yards of land which is allegedly in his possession. The petitioner was not present on two occasions to comply with the direction of this Court. He sent a telegram to the Hon''ble the Chief Justice of this Court on 8-4-2002 seeking transfer of the writ petition from the Board of Hon''ble Justice N.V. Ramana. He yet again sent a petition on 10.4.2002 to the Hon''ble the Chief Justice which reads as under.
I am petitioner in the above writ petition (WP No. 3419 of 2002) filed by myself against 10 respondents. Hon''ble Judge 13th Court without considering my request to direct respondents 7,8,9,10 to file their counters, even though petition filed by myself blaming myself with unusual language in open Court. Hence 1 therefore request you, to transfer my writ petition to some other Bench as concerned Court authorities are also acting in favour of respondents and against me and as such I am apprehending that no justice will cause to me and suffer a lot without taking counters from respondents 7,8,9,10 pressing me to tell arguments. Hence, I pray your honour to transfer my above writ petition to some other Court in the interests of justice.
6. The learned Judge directed that all the papers be placed before the Hon''ble the Chief Justice. The matter was thus directed to be placed before me. Thereafter it was listed before this Court on 18-4-2002, 18-6-2002, 2-7-2002, 10-7-2002, 24-7-2002, 30-7-2002, 8-8-2002 and today i.e., 9-8-2002. On all these days the petitioner, who appeared in person, was heard at length. He has filed number of documents to contend that he is the rightful owner of the premises bearing D. No. 30-17-6 and therefore he is entitled to question the mutation proceedings in favour of the respondents 6 and 8. After hearing the elaborate submissions made by party-in-person and after perusing various documents, the case of the petitioner can be culled out as under:
7. The petitioner appears to have been occupied premises bearing No. 30-17-6 in the year 1974. According to him, D.No. 30-17-6 was assessed to property tax with assessment No. 230139A by the then Vijayawada municipality (later municipal corporation). He alleges that he was regularly paying property tax. He has also produced a xerox copy of the demand notice dated 30-9-1993 demanding the petitioner to pay the property tax for the period 1-4-1993 to 30-9-1993. He has not produced any other documents to show that he is continuously in possession since 1974.
8. In the year 1988 Manthrala Radhakrishna Murthy, the seventh respondent herein filed a suit being O.S. No. 1326 of 1988 against the petitioner on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Vijayawada seeking eviction. The plaintiff therein claimed that he is the owner of the vacant site and that the defendant was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 110/-, that the tenant failed to pay the rents and that he is liable to be evicted from the property. The petitioner who was the defendant, opposed the suit alleging that he purchased the property from one G. Sambayya s/o Venkatappayya for Rs. 15,000/- in the year 1974 under an agreement of sale and that after purchasing the said property he raised a compound wall and constructed a residential house by spending Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner herein also claimed that even in the property tax register of the Vijayawada Municipality his name was mentioned in relation to the relevant assessment number. The civil Court framed seven issues, inter alia, an issue to the effect, whether the plaintiff has title to the property and whether the defendant is the owner or tenant and whether he has prescribed his title by adverse possession. After the trial was completed, the trial Court, however, did not decide the issue whether Manthrala Radhakrishna Murthy has title to the property holding that finding on the said issue is unwarranted as the suit is not for declaration of title. The Court proceeded to decide the issue whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and Manthrala Radhakrishna Murthy. It recorded a finding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and Radhakrishna Murthy and that the petitioner is not the tenant of plaintiff.
9. As against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 1326 of 1988 dated 20-9-1986, an appeal being A.S. No. 48 of 1996 was filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada by Manthrala Radhaknshna Murthy. The said appeal was dismissed for default on 19-6-1998. Aggrieved by the same Manthrala Radhaknshna Murthy filed an application seeking restoration of appeal along with an application being T.A. No. 1457 of 1999 for condonation of delay of 315 days, which was dismissed on 19-2-2002. As against the said judgment a revision petition being C.R.P. No. 1465 of 2000 was filed and this Court by an order dated 25-9-2000 dismissed the same holding that the appellate Court was justified in dismissing the I.A.
10. Relying on the proceedings before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, the petitioner very vehemently contends that he has perfected the title to the premises bearing No. 30-17-6 by adverse possession and either G. Sujana or G. Ravichunder cannot claim the said premises. He placed reliance on registered agreement of sale-cum-power of attorney executed by Manthrala Radhakrishna Murthy in favour of Garikapati Ravichander wherein it is shown that the property demised by the vendor to the vendee is a residential plot admeasuring 298.2/3 Sq.Mts. with D. No. 30-17-6 (assessment No. 23149A). The petitioner further contends that by producing the said registered agreement of sale M. Ravichander and Sujana with the connivance of the staff of Municipal Corporation misrepresented and got the assessment Nos. 23149A and 23149B clubbed into one assessment No.23149A. He also alleges that after getting the assessment numbers clubbed, in the guise of registered agreement of sale-cum-power of attorney dated 7-8-1999 in favour of G. Ravichander, the respondents are harassing the petitioner. The petitioner also narrated about the various criminal cases and the alleged harassment by police and how he has approached the Hon''ble Chief Minister and His Excellency the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. A reference to these events is however not necessary.
11. The petitioner contends that the respondents 6 to 9, especially respondents 6 to 8, obtained a common assessment No. 23149 A by showing the property of the petitioner also as if it belongs-to them. The petitioner vehemently contends that by reason of the judgment of the Civil Court in O.S. No. 1326 of 1998 Manthrala Radhaknshna Murthy has no manner of right to dispose of or sell the premises bearing No. 30-17-6 in favour of Garikapati Ravichander and therefore the first respondent could not have clubbed the assessments.
12. As directed by this Court the concerned file bearing No. RCA7000-775/02 relating to assessment No.23149A (G. Sujana w/o Syamala Rao) has been produced before me, which contains a letter addressed by G. Ravichander to the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, which reads as under:
I, Garikapati Ravichander s/o Shyamala Rao residing at Ashoknagar. Vijayawada have purchased the land 300 Sq. Yards, from M. Radha Krishna Murthy''s wife M. Mangamma through document No. 3305/99. The site adjacent to the said was purchased by my mother Garikapati Sujana w/o Shyamala Rao which is an extent of 600 Sq.Yds. for the purpose having single assessment for the said two sites purchased by me and my mother. We have request you good office to allot single assessment number on the name of my mother G Sujana w/o Shyamala Rao.
13. After perusing the said letter as well as the registered agreement of sale-cum-power of attorney dated 7-8-1999 executed by Manthrala Radhaknshna Murthy in favour of Garikapati Ravichander, it appears that the first respondent did not conduct proper inquiry into the matter before ordering mutation as requested by G. Sujana and G. Ravichander which resulted in clubbing of two assessments 23149A and 23149B.
14. In these proceedings, having regard to the limitations in exercise of power of judicial review, it is not possible to record a finding in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the respondents 6 and 8. It is well settled that the question of title cannot be gone into in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh, MR 1992 ''SC 1016;
15. The learned Counsel, Sri B. Somasekhar appearing for respondents 6 and 8 and Sri B.V. Krishna Rao appearing for respondents 7 and 9 opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi and that the mutation proceedings/clubbing the two assessment numbers are not concern of the petitioner. Sri Somasekhar further submits that respondents 6 and 8 are not interfering with the property in possession of the petitioner in D. No. 30-17-6 and that they are taking steps to raise constructions in the property admeasuring about 600 Sq.yds. in Sy.No. 201 (old) corresponding to Sy. No. 159/2 (new) of Municipal Ward No.26/2 (old municipal ward No.23) of Seetharampuram, Varanasivari street, which was sold by Manthrala Mangamma, ninth respondent herein in favour of Garikapali Sujana, the sixth respondent herein.
16. Sri Tadiboyana Venkateswara Rao, party-in-person does not dispute that Sujana purchased about 600 Sq.Yds. in the premises bearing No. 30-17-5 and that he has no objection for her to raise any constructions. His only objection is that either sixth respondent or eighth respondent cannot raise any construction in the property in his possession bearing No. 30-17-6 admeasuring 300 Sq.Yds. Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned Standing Counsel also submits that at the time of passing the orders clubbing the assessment numbers the Commissioner was not aware of the registered agreement of sale-cum-power of attorney executed by Manthrala Radhakrishna Murthy in favour of Garikapati Ravichander.
17. After hearing the elaborate submissions of the party-in-person and the various contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions and observations.
(i) This writ petition is not a proper remedy nor this Court is competent to declare the title of the petitioner to the residential premises bearing No. 30-1 7-6 of Seetharampuram. Varanasivaari Street, Vijayawada;
(ii) The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court and obtain decree of declaration of title to his property and it is also recorded that as on today respondents 6 to 9 do not dispute the possession of the petitioner to the said property;
(iii) The clubbing of two assessment numbers viz., 23149A and 23149B without notice to the petitioner is in violation of Rule 3(1) of the A.P, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Register of the Transfer of ownership of properties in the Assessment Book) Rules, 1965, and the said clubbing of assessment numbers is set aside;
(iv) The Commissioner of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation is directed to conduct de novo inquiry in relation to the request made by respondents 6 and 8 for clubbing of two assessment numbers and pass appropriate orders after giving notice to the petitioner and the respondents.
(v) It is open to the first respondent to receive the evidence produced by the petitioner and the respondents, as the case may be;
(vi) The inquiry as directed above shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. There shall be no order as to costs.
