HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1130 OF 2014 DATE: 09.10.2014 Between:
Yerramilli Venkatrama Udayamitra Sharma … Appellant And The Govt., of Andhra Pradesh., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1130 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.08.2014, whereby His Lordship was pleased to dismiss the writ petition observing that civil disputes are involved in the writ petition.
It appears that the appellant - writ petitioner has already filed a civil suit claiming title over the property in question on the strength of a Will executed by his adoptive mother. The unofficial respondent also claims right over the same property. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has correctly observed that civil disputes are involved.
We are informed that civil suits are pending before the appropriate Court for establishing the right over the property. In the meantime, mutation has been effected by the municipal authority in favour of the unofficial respondent. According to us, mutation has to be done based on establishing title of the property, as it does not create any independent right. It only recognizes the title in favour of a person in respect of a property.
In these circumstances, we clarify that the order of the learned Single Judge that mutation done already in favour of the unofficial respondent will abide by the result of the civil suits. In the event, the appellant succeeds in the civil suit obviously the mutation done in favour of the unofficial respondent will be cancelled. As far as the relief for interim protection of possession is concerned, it will be open for the appellant – writ petitioner to approach the civil Court itself, if not done already.
The appeal is accordingly closed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 09.10.2014 ES