G. Yadaiah vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT APPEAL NO: 231 OF 2022 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order daled 0710212O22 in lhe W.P.No.6493 ot 2022, on the file of the High Court.

Between: G.

Yadaiah, S/o.

Late G.Sarvaiah, aged 62 years, Occ: Business, R/o.

H.No.13-4-185/1 , Sabji Mandl, Karwan, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND '1 .

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2.

The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.13, Karwan, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Hyderabad.

3.

The Tahsildar, Asif Nagar Mandal, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated an the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Proceedings No.577lTC1 3lKZlGHl\t1C12021 , dated 13-12-2021, issued by the 2nd respondent, Deputy Commissioner Circle - 13 Karwan, GHIV1C Pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl.

CHETLURU SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI NEELI ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA STTARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT APPEAL No.231 OF 2022 JUDGMENT,,P. t,!. tt,','btc th. / ././usrr.e 5ans/r { /ra,t.lra Shanral The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 07.O2.2O22 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6493 of 2022.

3 of 2022.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that that the appellant/writ petitioner has purchased a property through a registered sale deed dated 03.06.2O11 and the sale deed is also on record The schedule appended to the sale deed reflects that the appellant/writ petitioner has purchased property bearing No.

13-4- 185, admeasuring 46.00 square yards equivalent to 38.46 square meters, situated at Sabzi Mandi, Hyderabad.

The appellant/n,rit petitioner alter purchasing the said property did self-assessment and submitted an application for assessment of tax.

On '24.Oa.2O2O, an assessment order was issued directing payment o[ tax and tax 'vvas also paid.

Thereafter, a show cause notice u,as issued on 24.06.2021, rvhich is also on record, and the samc reflects that as per revenuc record, the propert5r in respect ol which tax was paid was a GVM (Government Vacant Municipal) road.

In those circumstances, after hearing the 2 present appellant/ writ petitioner, the assessment order has been cancelled on 13.

12.2021.

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant/writ petitioner got the assessment done in respect of property bearing No.

13-4-185/ l, which was a Government Vacant Municipal road, after erecting a Iand, whereas tin shed and encroaching the purchased by No.

13-4- 185.

Government the appellant/writ petitioner the property is bearing Section 225 ol the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 reads as under:- "225.

Assesstnent book may be ameaded by the Commlssioner durlng the linanclal year:- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) the Commissioner may upon the representation of an1' person concerned or upon any other information at an.y time during the financial year to which the assessment book reiates amend the same - {a} b-r inserting therein the name of any person whose name ought to be so inserted or any premises previously omitted; (b) b)' strikinB out the name of any person not liable to t iable to the propert!' ta-\; (c) by increasing or reducing the amount of any rateable value and of the assessment based thereupon; (d) by altering the assessment on any [and or building which has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, accidcnt or mistake; (e) bY inserting or altering an entry in respect of any building erecterl, re.erectc(1. altered, added to or ( t J reconstructed in whole or in part after the preparation of the assessment book; (f) by making or cancelling any entry exempting with the approval of the Standing Committee any premises from liability to any property tax. (2) Where any amendment is made under sub-section (1) which has the effect of imposing on any person any liabilily for the payment of property taxes which would not be incurred but for such amendment or which has the effect of increasing the rateable value of any premises as stated in the assessment book, a special written notice as provided in sub-section (2) of section 220 shall be given by the Commissioner, and as far a.s may be the procedure laid down in sections 221 ,222 arld.223 shall be followed. (3) Every such amendment shall be deemed to have been made, for the purpose of determining the liability or exemption of the person concerned in accordance with the altered entry, from the earliest day in the current financial yetLr when the circumstances justifying the amendment existed. (4) (i) lf at any time it appears to the Commissioner that any person or property has been inadvertentll, omitted frorn the assessment records or inadequatei) or rmproperly assessed relating to any tax, or a clerica! or arrthmctical error is committed in the records maintained in relation to such assessment, he may assess or reassess or correct such errors, as the case may be: Provided that no such action shall be taken rvhere it involves an increase in thc asscssment, uniess the perscn affected is afforded an opportunit), to shou'cause against ttre proposed action. ed action. (ii) Such assessment or reassessmcnt or correction lf records shall not relate, to a period carlier than the five ha.[f years immediatel-r' preccdrng ttre currcnt half lea:-." \ l The aforesaid statutory provision of law empowers the Commissioner of the Grcater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to amend/cancel an assessment order, if it is obtained through fraud or accident or mistake.

In the present case, the assessment order was certainly in respect of premises bearing No.

13-4-185/ 1, which was ccrtainly not in respect of the property purchased by the appellant/writ petitioner, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justilied in dismissing the writ petition.

This Court also does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the Commissioner.

Resultantly, the u,rit appeal stands dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.ONESIM DEPUTY BrcISTRAR t-,lt SECTION OFFICER To, CHR SW w 1.

One CC to Sri Chetluru Sreenivas, Advocate [OPUC] 2.

Two CCs to GP for [Vunicipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3.

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4.

One CC to Sri Neeli Ashok Kumar, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 5.

Two CD Copies 6.

One Spare Copy I HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412022 JUDGMENT W.A.No.231 of 2022 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 1 E STAfS ri.

13 'iEP ?U? i-,,.,;l ,\ C -,. b