Telangana High Court
WP/27623/2007 of Kalvakota Vijaya Kumar, Vs The Municipal Corporation, on 27 December 2007
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 27623 OF 2007 Dated : December 27, 2007 Between: Kalvakota Vijyaya Kumar and another Petitioners AND The Municipal Corporation,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OFANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARIAND
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO.27623 OF 2007
Dated : December 27, 2007
Between:
Kalvakota Vijyaya Kumar and another
Petitioners
AND
The Municipal Corporation,Karimnagar, Rep. By its Commissioner and another Respondents THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
AND
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO.27623 OF 2007
ORAL ORDER:(per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI)
Seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in recovering the alleged arrears of propertytax in respect of House No. 2-10-1176 situated atJyothinagar, Karimnagar by distress, in terms of Sec. 269of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 asillegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Sec. 266and 268 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955, the petitioners filed this writ petition.
The petitioners herein are the owners of the housebearing Municipal No. 2-10-1176 situated at Jyothinagar,Karimnagar. It is averred that after revision of the propertytax, the quantum of annual property tax in respect of thehouse in question, was determined at Rs.7,229.10 Ps.The petitioners assailed said quantum by filing OS No.896 of 1986 before the District Munsif, Karimangar, whichwas decreed on 11.8.1988. While so, without conductingany enquiry in respect of the tax revision, the firstrespondent issued demand notice dated 23.6.1994demanding payment of Rs.65,335/- and the request of thepetitioners to furnish break up figures for such amount,was not complied with by the respondents. Subsequently,the first respondent issued another demand notice dated25.6.2001 demanding payment of Rs.88,496/- towardsproperty tax. On 30.9.2004, the first respondent issuednotice demanding payment of Rs.97,134/- towards arrearsof property tax and Rs.2,28,448/- till 31.3.2004.Consequent upon the request of the petitioners to furnish break up figures, the first respondent informed thepetitioners that a sum of Rs.1,14,364/- is payable upto31.3.2005, which accordingly to the petitioners is notcorrect, even if the property tax of Rs.8,762/- is added toRs.97,134/-, demanded as per the notice dated30.9.2004. The petitioners submitted representation to theChairman of the then Municipality on 1.12.2004 and on31.12.2004 stating that as per the Municipal Corporationof Hyderabad Act, the authorities shall not collect the taxbeyond three years. Ultimately, the first respondent bydemand notice dated 1.6.2006 directed the petitioners topay Rs.1,90,051/- mentioning the tax payable for half yearof 2006-2007 as Rs.4,381/- and arrears of tax atRs.1,12,967/- as on 31.3.2006 and penalty of Rs.62,882/-.The petitioners submitted representation on 24.6.2006, tothe effect that the demand is defective. It is the specificand persistent allegation of the petitioners that theirrequest to furnish break up figures was never consideredand no such figures were furnished to them.
It is averred that the first respondent without issuingnotice in Schedule K and without issuing distress warrantin Schedule L, surprisingly, the 2[nd] respondent deputedRevenue Inspector, Urban Karimnagar to the house of thepetitioners, for attachment of property, which is not inaccordance with the law. Hence, the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits thatthe petitioners have made a proposal by letter dated3.1.2005 to the effect that they shall pay the property taxof Rs.52,572/- calculated at Rs.8,762/- per year from1.4.1999 to 31.3.2005, apart from the representationssubmitted from time to time, which were neitherconsidered nor replied by the respondents and are stillpending consideration with the respondents. He furthercontends that the petitioners be given liberty to fileobjections to the impugned notice and the respondents bedirected to consider the same.
Evidently, representations submitted by thepetitioners from time to time, were not replied by therespondents. The latest representation submitted by thepetitioners is 28.5.2007.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, without adverting to the merits or otherwise of thecontentious issues raised on behalf of the petitioners inthis writ petition, we grant liberty to the petitioners to fileobjections to the impugned demand notice within fourweeks from today and in the event of such submission ofobjections, the respondents are directed to consider anddispose of the same within a period of four weekstherefrom. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be takenfor recovery of the demanded amount.
With the above directions, the writ petition isdisposed of. No order as to costs.
____________________T.MEENA KUMARI, J.
December 27, 2007Copy in a week. //BO// MAS
____________G.ROHINI, J.