Kota Gopala Krishna, v. The Jaggaiahpeta Municipality,

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.9133 of 2016 Date: 22.03.2016 Between:

Kota Gopala Krishna, S/o Purushotham Rao, Aged 75 years, R/o D.No.5-35, Seetharampuram, Jaggaiahpeta Town, Krishna District.

..... Petitioner and The Jaggaiahpeta Municipality, Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District, rep.by its Commissioner.

.....Respondent The Court made the following:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.9133 of 2016 PC: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao) This writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 27.02.2016 of the respondent municipality demanding payment of property tax for

the period from 1990-2000 to 2015-2016 quantified at Rs.1,39,212/-. Petitioner was informed that unless the amount as quantified is paid within three days, the property would be seized and auction would be conducted to recoup the arrears of amounts due.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the period covered by the impugned notice is from 1999-2000, whereas the respondent municipality cannot recover the arrears of amounts due for a period beyond three years.

3. Learned standing counsel submits that the said contention may not be true. The reading of the order would show that already demand notices were issued and on failure to pay the amount due, the impugned notice was issued. He further submits that petitioner has not even made a representation objecting to collection of property tax retrospectively from 1999-2000 and straightaway invoked jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Confronted by this objection, learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that petitioner is willing to make a representation and the same should be considered objectively by the respondent municipality. He further submits that already he has paid Rs.40,000/- and he is willing to pay another Rs.10,000/-. He would pay the balance amount quantified, if any, after his representation is considered and appropriate decision is made. He submits that until the representation is disposed of, respondent municipality should not take any coercive steps against the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of with the following order:

i) Petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in addition to Rs.40,000/- already paid within two weeks;

ii) Petitioner may make a representation to the Commissioner, respondent municipality, if so advised, raising objection on the amount of tax demanded from the petitioner and all other contentions as urged in the writ petition within a period of two weeks from today;

iii) On receipt of such representation, the Commissioner, respondent municipality shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as warranted in law within the period of eight weeks thereafter. iv) No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner until appropriate orders are passed and further demand is made in terms thereof.

v) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the contentions urged and all the issues are left open. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ___________________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 22.03.2016 kkm HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.9133 of 2016 Date: 22.203.2016 kkm