T. Kistaiah v. The State Of Telangana,

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.8915 of 2016 Date 18.03.2016 Between:

T Kistaiah S/o late T Pentaiah R /o H No. 3-4-202, Meena Nagar, Bhongir, Nalgonda district .....Petitioner and The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.

.....Respondents 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.8915 of 2016 PC: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao) In this writ petition, petitioner challenges the demand notice No. 14951 dated 13.2.2016 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,13,678.00 towards property tax for the periods 2011-12 to 20152016.

2. According to party-in-person there is exorbitant increase in property tax.

Party-in-person contends that though on several occasions petitioner filed objections on the nature of demand made, but his objections are not considered. He submits that the impugned demand notice does not contain the details of the assessment and even though request was made to furnish details of assessment, the information is not furnished. In support of his contention, he has referred to the representations submitted by him on 29.4.2002, 15.6.2002 and 20.12.2004. After receipt of demand notice dated 9.1.2014, petitioner has made representation dated 27.8.2014 requesting the Commissioner of the respondent municipality that such revision of property tax is made even without informing the petitioner and calling for his objections.

3. Party-in-person fairly submits that even though he has been protesting on the demand made and though there is unreasonable increase in the property tax, as a law abiding citizen, he has been making payment and willing to make payment as demanded now, but he submits that his grievance has to be attended by the respondent municipality and he must be informed of justification for increase in the property tax, the nature of such increase and without furnishing details the respondent municipality cannot unilaterally increase the property

tax and make a demand.

4. Party-in-person therefore seeks leave of this Court withdraw the writ petition and to to permit him to make a detailed representation raising his objections on the demand made by the respondent municipality and seeks direction to the respondent municipality to consider the said objections and pass appropriate orders by assigning due reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner within a fixed time frame. Party-in-person fairly submits that he shall pay the amount as demanded but such payment shall be without prejudice to the objections, he is entitled to file and shall be subject to the final decision by the respondent municipality.

5. Having regard to the said submissions, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty as sought for by the party-in-person with following directions:

1) Petitioner is granted liberty to make detailed representation raising objections against the demand of property tax by duly furnishing the details of such demand made by the municipality and amount of tax paid by the petitioner from year to year by enclosing a copy of this order.

2) On receipt of such representation, the Commissioner of the respondent municipality shall consider the same, furnish the relevant information as sought for by the petitioner and if necessary afford personal hearing to the petitioner, on a date fixed in advance and intimated to the petitioner, consider his objections and pass appropriate orders as warranted by law by assigning due reasons in support of the decision.

3) Petitioner shall remit the amount as demanded by the respondent municipality in the demand notice dated 13.2.2016 within a period of one week from the date of

receipt of copy of this order.

4) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims of the petitioner and the demand made by the respondent municipality and the issues are left open. However, the amount paid by the petitioner shall abide the result of the decision of the respondent municipality if the objections are filed by the petitioner within the time granted as above.

Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed. No costs.

___________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ___________________________ Date :18.03.2016 P.NAVEEN RAO, J tvk HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.8915 of 2016 Date: 18.03.2016 Tvk