ORDER : (ORAL)
Heard Mrs. T. Shoba Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent No.2.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned notice in File No.A1/5020/2026-27 dated 27.07.2026 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking mutation of his name in respect of the property bearing H.No.6-3-277 situated at Ramagiri,
1
2
Nalgonda, is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.
3. It is stated that father of petitioner, Mr. Tirukkovalluri Venugopala Murthy purchased the property bearing H.No.6-3-100 (old) admeasuring 671 square yards situated at Ramagiri, Nalgonda, under registered sale deed bearing document No.1722 of 1976 dated 04.11.1976 from the previous owner Mr. P. Jagan Mohan Rao. Under registered settlement deed bearing document No.2690 of 2002 dated 29.04.2002, father of petitioner settled major portion of above property in favour of petitioner, which was given H.No.6-3-276 and smaller portion was retained by his father which was given H.No.6-3-277.
4. It is stated that during the lifetime of petitioner's father, he executed unregistered will deed on 24.12.2020 bequeathing his rights over the property bearing H.No.6-3-277 when he was in a sound and disposing state of mind. The father of petitioner expired on 05.11.2021. Petitioner submitted representation dated 29.12.2025 for mutating his name in respect of the property
3
bearing H.No.6-3-277 on the strength of unregistered will deed dated 24.12.2020 and other documents. Respondent No.2 also obtained legal opinion from Mr. Gali Srinivas, standing counsel for respondent No.2 - Corporation. However, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering the documents presented by the petitioner i.e., death certificate dated 10.11.2021, unregistered will deed dated 24.12.2020, sale deed bearing document No.1722 of 1976 dated 04.11.1976, registered settlement deed bearing document No.2690 of 2002 dated 29.04.2002 etc., mutation application has been rejected.
5. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that impugned order has been passed by respondent No.2 as the petitioner did not furnish documents in support of his claim.
6. However, without entering into the merits of the case, to meets the ends of justice, taking note of the documents referred to above in proof of ownership, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to furnish fresh set of documents to respondent No.2 to prove his ownership over the property bearing
4
H.No.6-3-277 admeasuring 301 square yards situated at Ramagiri, Nalgonda Town and District. On receipt of the same, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass orders, in accordance with law, by issuing notice to the petitioner, legal heirs of late Mr. Tirukkovalluri Venugopala Murthy, and all other concerned/ interested persons, by affording opportunity of hearing to them, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.
______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
September 28, 2026
MS