Telangana High Court
WP/27525/2007 of Dr. Cheruku Srinivasa Rao Vs The Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar , Rep. by its 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. 27525 OF 2007 Dated : December 27, 2007 Between: Dr. Cheruku Srinivas Rao Petitioner AND The Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, Rep. By
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.27525 OF 2007
Dated : December 27, 2007
Between:
Dr. Cheruku Srinivas Rao
Petitioner
AND
The Municipal Corporation,Karimnagar, Rep. By its Commissioner and another Respondents THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARIANDTHE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO.27525 OF 2007
ORAL ORDER:(per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI)
Seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring action of therespondents in recovering the alleged arrears of propertytax in respect of House No. 2-10-1177 situated at Jyothinagar, 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 petitioner filed this writ petition.
The petitioner herein is the owner of the housebearing municipal No. 2-10-1177 situated at Jyothinagar,Karimnagar. After revision, the quantum of annualproperty tax in respect of the house in question wasdetermined at Rs.5,014.40 Ps. The petitioner assailed thesaid quantum by filing OS No. 899 of 1986 before theDistrict Munsif, Karimangar, which was decreed on3.9.1987. The petitioner paid demanded tax ofRs.1995.00 for the period from 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992.While so, the first respondent issued demand noticeNo.15517 showing property tax as Rs.8,908/- for the year2001-2002 and Rs.88,406/- for the period from 1985-2001demanding to pay a sum of Rs.97,314/-, to which thepetitioner submitted his objection. While so, the firstrespondent issued demand notice dated 13.9.2004demanding to pay a sum of Rs.3,45,266/- viz.,Rs.1,08,165/- towards arrears of tax and Rs.2,34,392/-towards penalty. Though the petitioner expressed hiswillingness to pay property tax at Rs.5418/- per year from1.4.1999 to 31.3.2004, there was no reply from therespondent. Later the petitioner submitted representationdated 1.12.2004 to the Chairman of the then Municipality, willing to pay Rs.32,508/- being the tax for six years from1.4.1999 to 31.3.2005, which was neither replied norconsidered by the respondents.
While so, the first respondent by letter dated17.12.2004 informed the petitioner that the property tax forthe house in question is Rs.1,13,568/- till 31.3.2005 anddemanded to pay the same by 31.12.2004 in order toavoid penalty, else the property would be attachedthrough process of court. Subsequently, the firstrespondent issued demand notice dated 11.5.2005demanding payment of Rs.1,05,231/- towards arrears oftax and Rs.2,60,780/- towards penalty upto 31.3.2005.Again by demand notice dated 10.10.2006, the firstrespondent demanded payment of Rs.1,21,710/- towardsarrears of property tax and Rs.3,03,062/- towards penalty.The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.21,672/- on 31.7.2006being tax for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2007 andalso addressed a letter on 26.5.2007 stating that as perthe Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Act, theauthorities shall not collect the tax beyond three years.
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 thepetitioner, for attachment of property, which is not inaccordance with the law. Hence, the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatthe petitioner has already paid tax upto 2006-2007 andalso submitted a representation dated 26.5.2007 throughhis counsel, which is said to be still pending considerationwith the respondents. He further contends that thepetitioner be given liberty to file objections to theimpugned notice and the respondents be directed toconsider the same.
Evidently, representations submitted by thepetitioner from time to time, were not replied by therespondents. The latest representation submitted by thepetitioner is 26.5.2007, which he got issued by hiscounsel.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, without adverting to the merits or otherwise of thecontentious issues raised on behalf of the petitioner in thiswrit petition, we grant liberty to the petitioner 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, 2007
____________G.ROHINI, J.
Copy in a week. //BO// MAS