Sri. J.Lakshmipathi Rao vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Bctrveen: Sri. {.Lakshmipathi Rao, S/o Bala Koteswara Rao, Occ.

Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.9- 53, Venkateswara Nagar Malkajgiri, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER 1.

The State of Telangana, Rep by Prl.Secretary, MA and UD department, O/o at Secretariat Premises, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad-s00029.

2.

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, O/o CHMC oftice. near Tank bund, Hyderabad-s00063 3.

The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Malkajgiri Circle, Circle No.28 Hyderabad. .-RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, or Writs, Order or Orders more particularly in the nature of mandamus thereby declaring the action ofthe Respondents herein demanding the property tax notice No.l dated 06.09.2021 and No.Tax/MKJlGHMCl2l-22 dated 18.10.2021 including penalty in respect of premises bearing NO.25- 40/73|2A(PTIN NO.

I 170605 142), East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Malkajgiri Circle-28, GI-IMC without considering the representations dt.22ll0/2021, 2011212021 made by the Petitioner, insisting the payment of the property tax the as being, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India and consequently set a side property tax notice No.l dated 0610912021 and No.Tax/MKl/GHMCl2l-22 dated 1811012021 including penalty in respect of premises bearing NO.25-40/73I2A(PTIN NO.1170605142), Easr Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Malkajgiri Circle-28, GHMC and consider the petitioners representation dl2211012021,20112/2021 including restoration of his H.NO. his H.NO.

25-40173/3, Easr Anandbagh, Malkaj giri, Malkaj giri Circte-28, GHMC AND Petition under Section 151 CPC prayiug that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in pursuance dcmanding the property tax notice No.l dated 06/0912021 and No .Tax/MKEGHMCI2L-22 dated 18/1012021 including penalty in [3230 I WRIT PETITION NO: 28103 OF 2022 IA NO: I OF 2022 respect of premises b :aring NO.25- 40173/2A(PTIN NO.

I 1 7060 5 I 42), East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Malkajgir Circle-28, GHMC Counsel for the Petiti rner:SRI.

VSRMV PRASAD SANAKA '/ Counsel for the Resp(,ndents: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN l)IlV -"' The Court made thc I ollowing: ORDER / THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No.281O3 of2o22 ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "... to issue Writ, or Writs, Order or Orders more particularly in the nature of mandamus thereby declaring the action of the Respondents herein demanding the property tax notice No.1 dated 06.09.2027 and No.

Tax/MKJ/GHMCl2l-22 dated 18.10.2021 including penalty in respect of premises bearing No.25-40/7312A (P|IN NO.1170605142), East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Malkajgiri, Circle-28, GHMC without considering the representations dt.22.

10.2O2L, 20.12.2O21 made by the Petitioner, insisting the payment of the property tax the as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articte 14 of the constitution of India and consequently set a side property tax notice No.1 dated 06.09.2021 and No.

Tax/MKUGHMCI2|-22 dated 18.10.2021 including penalty in respect of premises bearing NO.25-40/7312A (PIIN NO.1170605142), East Anandbagh, Maikajgiri, Malkajgiri, Circle-28, GHMC and consider the petitioners representation dt.22.lO.2O2l, 20.12.2021 including restoration of his H.NO.25-40 /7313, East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Malkajgiri Circle-28, GHMC and .....".

Mr. .".

Mr.

VSRMV Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of H.No'25- 40 173 l3 in Sy.No.565/ 1-3 admeasuring 266sq.yds situated at East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, which is purchased under registered sale deed dated 27 .O2.lgB4 along with K.

Satyanarayana Murthy.

Thereafter, the said Satyanarayana Murthy has executed release deed in favour of petitioner vide registered document dated 23.09.1991 and ever since, the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the said land without being any interference from any of the third party.

The petitioner has obtained permission for construction of a residential house consisting of gror:nd floor from Malakajgiri Municipality // 2 vide permission dated 25.O2.2OO2.

Thereafter, the petitioner has obtained permission for th e second floor in the year 2005.

Furtlter, the petitioner has constructed somr:commercial shops in the said prcmises and they have also been regularize<. by GHMC vide proceedings daletl 14.O7.2011 atd, accordingly, the l,etitioner has been paying the taxes without default.

3.

Learne< counsel for the petitioner submil s that initially, the property tax for the said premises was Rs.2,000/- and subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs...,196/-.

He submits that the CHM() authorities without conducting any :nquiry, without personal verificatio:r have changed the house number to 25-40/73/24 stating that the petitioner has constructed a new building anr I in the year 2009- 10, the GHMC ,ruthorities have not issued any tax notice and being a dutiful citizen, lhe petitioner has approached the ruthorities.

It is submitted that t:c respondent No.3 without conducti rg any enquiry, without inspecting t he premises have enhanced the tax from Rs.4,196/- to Rs.B0,2O2/- per annrim in the year 2012, against whi:h, the petitioner has preferred M.A.N:..353 of 2012 before the Chief Judge, ( ity Small Causes Court at Hyderabad Initially, an interim order was passed :n I.A.No. :n I.A.No.587 of 2072 suspending the impugned notice and directed the petiti:ner to pay arr amount of Rs.10,0007'- per year without default, in case, the said condition is violated, tht petitioner will be dismissed.

In view of the said order, the petitioner has paid the property tax till disposal of the ;aid M.A.No.353 of 2OL2.

3 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 without following the order passed by the court on 03.04.2O12, agatn issued a revision notice on 3o.r2.2o14, for reassessment of the propert5l under section 220(2)(3) of GHMC Act.

The said notice is sub-judice and the 3'd respondent in continuation with the said notice has passed the order of reassessment on 18.10.2021 without following the court order in M.A.No.353 of 2Ol2 dated 22.04.2016 and considered the said notice dated 30.12.2014 instead of 25.03.2012.

Hence, the said notice is illegal and liable to be set aside.

I 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that M.A.No.353 of 2Ol2 was allowed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad on 22.04.2016.

The appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned demand notice in respect of premises bearing No.2s-ao 173 /2A situated at Malkajgiri.

The matter is reverted back to the assessing authorit5r of the corporation with a direction to reassess the property tax in respect of the demised premises on duly following the procedure laid down under law and on providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant to put forward his tenable objections.

The order passed by the court setting aside the impugned notice does not absolve the liability of the appellant to pay up to date propertSr tax @ Rs.1O,000/- per annum on or before 31.05.2O16, failure if any on the part of the appellant to abide by the condition, any appropriate action can be initiated.

The petitioner has submitted a copy of the said 4 order.

Thereafter the 3.d respondent has issued a noti:e on 18.08.2020 for hearing to be co rducted on 20.08. on 20.08.2020 at 3pm for reassessment of the property tax in r:spect of the premises in view of tlre orders passed in M.A.No.353 of 2Ol2 d,ated 22.04.2016.

It is stated that the petitioner is paying propert5, tax up to date without default to the respondent authorities, from 2008 onwarr [s, they are receiving property tax tt.rough cheques and encashed the said cheques till 2O2O, but they did not ir;sue any receipts in respect of the pro oerty tax of the said premises. sorre of the tenants of petitioner are ins sting accepting the preemies as a tenant, asking the petitioners the latt st property tax receipts in respcct ol the said premises, because of the wrongful acts of the respondents, the p:trtio:rers is getting very less income th:ough rents.

6.

Learned < ounsel for the petitioner submits that all of a sudden, the 3'o respondent ar tthorities called upon the petition,:r ort 2g.O3.2021 demanding to pay Rs.12,00,000/- on or before 3l.O3.2U21, otherwise, the petitioner has to pay Rs.35,00,000/- including penalty withoul following the court orders and w thout deciding the reassessment of tlre property tax.

As such, the petitioner has made another representation on .3O.O3.2021 to the respondent No.3 dir closing all the facts, but no acl.ion ha:; been taken his representation.

As such, he made another appticatic n on 30.03.2021 through mail and e Iso sent a letter on Ol.O6.2O2t alorrs with cheque of 5 for the current year property tax, but the said DD was not encashed by the respondent authorities.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without deciding the said procedure, without communicating any order about hearing conducted on 2O.O8.2O2O, the respondents have issued a demand bill to pay property tax on 06.09.2021 , in that bill, the arrears are shown as Rs.

10,10,098/-, penalty of Rs.20,95,O66l- and total amount of Rs.31,90,234/- without assigning any reasons.

Then the petitioner has made another representation on O1.10. on O1.10.2O21 to the 3'd respondent informing the same.

The 3'd respondent has issued an intimation dated 18.10.2021 and informed the petitioner that the GHMC has approved the revision of the proeprty tax and rehxed the property tax from 2,16,098/- to Rs.85,064/- per annum from 01.04.201 1 .

The said intimation is quite against the GHMC property tax assessment rules and he submits that reassessment of property tax seeking arrears can only be lor the last three years.

After receiving the said intimation letter, he made representation on 22.10-2021 to the 3'd respondent seeking clarification how the assessment has been calculated and how the penalty has been imposed without verifying the documents and how the new door number has been assigned without having any new construction by enclosing all the documents.

But, there is no response from the 3.d respondent.

It is stated that the petitioners is a senior citizen aged about 87 years and he lost his lirr"a.ta he is only looking after the day to day ./ // 6 affairs of the b uilding and due to the illegal, urLr:thical acts of the respondents, the retitioner is suffering with serious hea tl-r ailments.

8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits t 1€rt u'ithout verifying the building whi, :h is partly residential and partly c rnrmcrcial, which is disclosed in the B lS proceedings, the respondent :rutho rl.ies are treating the entire premises al commercial premises and new housr: number along with PTIN number is a;signed.

He submits that again st this. illegal action of the respondents, the oetitioner has no other remedy. except to approach this court.

9.

When this matter came up on O7.O7.2O22, this corrrt has passed an interim order o:serving that the amount raised for tlt: last three years is Rs.85,O64/- and ralalcing the interest of the petitiorrr:rs rrs well as the respondent corpor ation, there shall be stay of all lurtht:r proceedings pursuant to den and notice d,ated 06.09.2021 zrnc intimation letter 18.IO. ter 18.IO.2O21 subjt ct to the petitioner paying arr amor-tr)t of Rs.85,OO0/- within two weeks f 'om the date of receipt of copy of the rrder and the same is subject to furthe' orders passed in the writ petition anrl on s;uch payment, the respondent co'poration shall not take any coerciv: steps and if the petitioner fails to p 1y the amount as directed by this cortrt, tl-re respondent corporation is at lib:rty to proceed in accordance with law. \ /7 /,, lo.

A counter affidavit has been hled on behalf of the respondents.

It is stated that they have calied upon the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.2,16,098/- as the petitioner has converted the maximum extent of the building into commercial one, to which the petitioner approached the respondents and submitted the regularization proceedings along with the plan copy and subsequently, they have reduced the tax amount from RS.2,f6,O98/- to Rs.85,O64/- and informed the same to the petitioner and the petitioner has never turned up to the oIlice.

It is stated that there is no bar for revision of the property tax of the petitioner building pending the above M.A.No.353 of 2012. lt is stated that in compliance with the orders dated.

22.04.2016 passed by the chief Judge, city Small causes court at Hyderabad, served a hearing notice to the petitioner on 18.08.2020 calling upon the petitioner to attend the office of the Dy' Commissioner on 20.Oa.2O2O at 3pm for hearing.

It is stated the petitioner attended the office and put forth his contentions and basing on the same, ttrey have passed the order dated 2a.oa.2o2o.

It is stated that even after considering the objections and passing necessary orders, the petitioner has failed to pay necessary requisite property tax as fixed by the respondents in spite of the petitioner paying Rs. l0,oo0/- only towards property tax which reflects the adamant nature of the petitioner and establishes malafides on the part of the petitioner. etitioner.

As the petitioner fails to pay the tax, they have issued the notice dated 06.09.2021 calling upon the petitioner to make payment as per the .r/ 7 8 said noti(.e .

He s:bmits that the whole endeavor of the 1t,:titioncr is to evade the payment 11.

Initially when the petitioner was paying an atoount of Rs.4, 196/_, when he received a demaad notice asking him to pay I?s.S,ti0,3Og/- within three days, the p, )titioner having come to know that t;te property tax was enhanced to Rs.8t),202/_ per annum, he has approache<l the Chief Judge, City Small Causr s Court at Hyderabad by filing M A No.353 of 2OI2.

Initially the said r: otice was suspended and thereafter lry jrtrlgsrnent dated 22.04.2016, the m rtter was reverted back to .the assess,ng authority of the corporation with a direclion to 'reassess' the property tex in respect of the demised premises r n duly following tl.e procedure raid d.w.n .nder raw ard on providing reasc nable opportunit5r of hearing to the appellant to put forward his tenable objections.

It is also observed that * r: orcler passed by the court sefling i Lside the impugned notice which irr 1s6,_-ir.6 by the appellant on 25.03.j 012 does not absolve the liabilitl, of tt r: appellant to pay up to date 'property tax' at the rate of Rs. r0,o00/_ per €rr num on or before 3l '05'2016 ant fai. rre if any on the part of the appellar l to ,ebide by the above condition, give s liberry to the respondent to initiate steps for recovery of such amount as pr r la.rv and accordingly the appeal was rlisposed of.

12- when this t ppear was disposed of on 22.04.2016. the respondents have kept quiet a,d ir'sued notice on 1g.0g.2020 for hearin5. to b. conducted on 2O.O8.2O20 at 3pr n for reassessment of the property tax.

According to 9 \ the petitioner, he received the notice calling upon him to pay an amount of Rs.35,00,000/-.

As per the counter aflidavit of the respondents, they have passed the order on 28.08.2020.

8.08.2020.

Whenever, the property tax is enhanced, a notice shall be given to the affected parties and their objections have to be called for and they should understand the reasons for such enhancement and as per Section 223 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), there should be a hearing conducted by the Commissioner and any person aggrieved by such fixation of the tax cart appeal to the court under Section 282 of the Act.

13.

After the orders are passed by the court, the respondents have issued an intimation letter dated 18.10.2021 and informed the petitioner that the GHMC has approved the revision of the property tax and refixed the property tax from 2,16,098/- to Rs.85,O64/- per annum w.e.f.

O1.O4.2011.

As rightly argued by the learned counsei for the petitioner, when the petitioner has made his objections, the respondents ought to have considered the same and should have come to just conclusion by giving reasons.

The order that is passed by the respondents while revising the tax, the said order should contain the reasons so that the aggrieved party can approach the court.

But, it appears that the respondents have failed to take any such steps except stating that they have revised the tax from Rs.2,16,098/- to Rs.85,O64l- per annum. \ \ To, 10 14.

In view of the same, this court hnds that the -espondents have not considered the p ttitioner's case as per the order pass.erl in M.A.No.353 of 2Ol2 and the objt ctions of the petitioner are not properly ,lonsidered.

15.

Hence, -he writ petition is disposed of setting aside the demand notice dated O6.Ott.2O2l and intimation letter dated 18.

LO.2021 and further, the respondents a re directed to consider all those object.ons of the petitioner raised in his repr esentation dated 22.10.2021 and shall pirss a reasoned order afresh in acr ordernce with law.

There sha-ll be no ord<:r as to costs.

The M iscellaneous Applications, if e )-ty shall stand automatically clo sed SD/-T. sed SD/-T.'tI RU,\{ALA DEVI ASSIST, II.{T I{E,GISTRAR //TRTIE COPY// SE(] TION OFFICER l.

The Prl.Secretary, N:A and UD department, O/o at Secretariat P:cmises.

Near Tank Bund, State of Telan ;ana, Hyderabad-500029.

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, (),o GHMC office, near Tank bund, Hyc erabad-500063 3.

The Deputy Commis;ioner, GHMC, Matkajgiri Circle, Circle No.l [i Hyderabad.

4.

One CC to SRI.

VSI :MV PRASAD SANAKA Advocate [OPUC] 5.

Two CCs to GP FO?.

MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV (TG),High Court for the State of Telangana.

IOUT] 6.

Two CD Copies / HIGH COURT LK,J DATED:24101/2023 ORDER WP.No.28l03 t'f 2022 WP IS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT COSTS 2 l\r (HE sT4f 6 \ ?I?J tiB 1,t