Thajunnisa v. Guntur Municipal Corporation
ÐÏࡱá>þÿ ACþÿÿÿ@ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ð¿V%bjbjqPqP 52::0%ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤JJJJJJJ^BBB8zŽ^¶¶"ØØØØØØ€‚‚‚‚‚‚$hkF¦JØØØØئJJØØ»àààØÐJØJØ€àØ€àà:Ø,JJ`ØaÐÛ...Wâ ̈ÐB ̈d €Ñ0R± |±`±J` ØØàØØØØئ¦ˆXØØØØØØØ^^^äB^^^B^^^JJJJJJÿÿÿÿTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.75 OF 2013 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful appellant preferred this appeal against the decree and judgment, dated 05.06.2013, passed in Appeal No.8 of 2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, whereunder the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant is the owner of house bearing Door No.
14-4-34 situated at 4th Lane, Potturuvari Thota, Guntur. The respondent Corporation levied tax at Rs.4,087/- for the years 2003-04, Rs.5,310/- for the years 2004-05 and Rs.9,112/- for the years 2005-06 to 2007 to 2008. While the matter stood thus, the respondent served a notice on the appellant proposing to enhance the tax from Rs.9,112/- to Rs.20,510/- without assigning any valid and cogent reasons. Immediately, the appellant submitted hers objections by filing revision petition, dated 26.11.2007, to the respondent Corporation. But, to the surprise of the appellant, again a special notice, dated 27.12.2007, was served on her with a similar demand without disposing of the earlier Revision Petition. Again the appellant submitted another Revision Petition No.21/I/ASR/2007, dated 28.12.
2007, with a request to read the earlier Revision Petition as part and parcel of the revision and the respondent Corporation having received the Revision Petitions did not afford any opportunity of personal hearing before the Commissioner and passed the order confirming the tax proposed to be levied. Aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent Corporation, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, who after considering the material and argument advanced by both the counsel, confirmed the order passed by the respondent Corporation. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred this appeal on various grounds.
One among the other contentions is that the respondent Corporation did not comply with Sections 222 and 223 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'). Except this contention, no other contention was raised as a substantial question of law during arguments and this Court finds that it is only a substantial question of law. As seen from the material available on record, the respondent Corporation served a special notice, dated 01.10.2007, proposing to revise the tax. Immediately the appellant submitted her Revision Petition, dated 26.11.2007 bearing Revision Petition No.46/H/ASR/2007, dated 26.11.2007. According to the appellant, the said Revision Petition was admittedly not disposed of, and again served another special notice, dated 27.12.2007, and again the appellant submitted a Revision Petition No.
21/I/ASR/2007, dated 28.12.2007, and later without affording any opportunity to the appellant, passed the impugned order, which was challenged before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The only contention urged before this Court is that no opportunity was afforded to the appellant before confirming the proposed tax. On receipt of the special notices, dated 01.10.2007 and 27.12.2007, the appellant preferred revisions against both the special notices and as seen from the finding of the appellate Court, the respondent Corporation considered the objections in the Revision Petitions under Exs.A2 and A5 and reduced the tax to Rs.13,670/- under first revision and again reduced to Rs.13,065/- by passing an order, dated 24.03.2008, under Ex.A11.
Thus, it is clear from the material on record produced before the appellate Court, the respondent Corporation considered the objections and reduced the property tax, proposed to be levied. Therefore, the contention that the respondent Corporation did not consider the objections in the revisions preferred by the appellant is without any substance and the same cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant, while contending that no opportunity of personal hearing was given, drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 222 and 223 of the Act. Sections 222 and 223 of the Act read as under: "222.
Notice to complainants of day fixed for investigating their complaints:- The Commissioner shall cause all complaints so received to be registered in a book to be kept for this purpose and shall give notice in writing, to each complaint, of the day, time and place when and where at this complaint shall be investigated. 223. Hearing of complaint:- (1) At the time and place so fixed, the Commissioner shall investigate and dispose of the complaint in the presence of the complainant, if he shall appear, and if not, in his absence. (2) For reasonable cause to be recorded, the Commissioner may, from time to time, adjourn the investigation.
(3) When the complaint is disposed of, the result there of shall be noted in the book of complaints kept under Section 222 and necessary amendments, if any shall be made in accordance with such result, in the Assessment Book." On overall consideration of the language used under Sections 222 and 223 of the Act, a notice in writing is required to be issued to the complainant informing the day, time and place when and where his complaint shall be investigated. In the instant case, no such notice, as contemplated under Section 222 of the Act, was issued and thereby the order passed, if any, reducing the tax based on the objections raised in the revision petitions is without affording any reasonable opportunity and in total disregard of the obligation of the respondent Corporation.
Deciding such revisions without complying with Sections 222 and 223 of the Act in the absence of the appellant without issuing notice is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. The appellant raised the issue of non-compliance of Sections 222 and 223 of the Act, before the Principal Senior Civil Judge in the appeal. But, the learned Judge observed that the respondent Corporation considered the objections raised in the revision petitions and passed appropriate order reducing the tax from Rs.13,670/- to Rs.13,065/-, but no finding was recorded as to whether a notice as contemplated under Section 222 of the Act was issued before investigating into the allegations made in the revisions. Thus, the finding of the Principal Senior Civil Judge is erroneous as regards compliance of Sections 222 and 223 of the Act.
As the order under challenge before the Principal Senior Civil Judge was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without affording any opportunity to appear before the respondent Corporation, the same is illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the respondent Corporation which was challenged in the appeal before the Principal Senior Civil Judge is hereby set aside, remanding the matter to the respondent Corporation for fresh disposal strictly adhering to the procedure as contemplated under Sections 222 and 223 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 Act, within two months from the date of receipt of this order, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellant herein. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. _________________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 09.06.2015 KH PAGE PAGE 5 /0`aijkl£ ¥ ÿJE_$d$$Å$Ø$%%"%-%/%0%1%3%4%6%7%9%:%<%=%C%D%E%G%øòíçÛÐÛÊÀμÀaÀaÀ¢ ̃¢ ̃""¢...{s"s"s"s"icic" h¶{ý0Jjh¶{ý0JUjh¶{ýUh¶{ýCJOJQJh¶{ýCJOJQJ h¶{ý6h¶{ýh¶{ýCJOJQJh¶{ýOJQJh¶{ý5OJQJaJh¶{ýH*OJQJaJh¶{ýOJQJaJ h¶{ýCJ$h¶{ý5OJQJ\h¶{ý5>*OJQJ\ h¶{ýCJ h¶{ý>* h¶{ýCJ" h¶{ý6CJ&/0`aklX Y Û õö¿Àjkðñ þEýýýûûûóîóóîâîóîâÙóîóÅÅ$„ЄЄÐdh] „Ð^„Ð`„Ða$$„Ð`„Ða$$„Ðdà`„Ða$$a$$dàa$0%U%þþˆlmYZcdç è é!ê!
$$•$Ø$"%-%0%ëëÚÎÅÎÅÎÅÎÅÎÅ1⁄2 ́2a¥$a$$dha$$„@^„@a$$dàa$$„Ð`„Ða$$„Ðdà`„Ða$$„ЄЄÐ]„Ð^„Ð`„Ða$$„ЄЄÐdh]„Ð^„Ð`„Ða$0%2%3%5%6%8%9%;% <%E%F%G%R%S%T%U%V%ýýýýýýýýôòýôòýýí$a$„üÿ„&`#$G%H%N%O%P%Q%R%U%V%õïõäõïàÖh¶{ýCJOJQJh¶{ýh1⁄2|0JmHnHu h¶{ý0Jjh¶{ý0JU3 0&P1h°Ð/ °ðK!°p"°p#p$p%°°€°€Ð†œ@@ñÿ@NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@òÿ¡DDefault Paragraph FontVi@óÿ3VTable Normal :Vö4Ö4Ö laö(k@ôÿÁ(No List:>@ò:Title$a$5OJQJ\4@4Header ÆàÀ!.)@¢.Page NumberV2ÿÿÿÿ/0`aklXYÛõö¿Àjkðñ þEˆlmYZcdçèéê•Ø"-0235689;<EFGRSTWIˆ0ÀIˆ0€Iˆ0€Iˆ0€Iˆ0€Iˆ0€Iˆ0€Iˆ0€Iˆ0€Iˆ0€Iˆ0€Iˆ0€Iˆ0€Iˆ0€Iˆ0€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0 $$$$$'G%V%0%V%U% '!•!
ÿ•€¬· ̧1⁄2¿Åbhfhilmq/0022335689;<DGQTW/0022335689;<GQW1RïòÈk KM pqrr| ƒÛÛMWššôöHO©aμ¶1⁄23⁄4ÆÎ÷úŠŽd m y { 5 ? ç ë ...VWûü% & ò ó EFbf33}~«¬ccy†· ̧îòôõú%1ˆˆšo×Ý;@dežŸ¬·ÂÄÝÞæçfj« ̧1⁄2Áèé.9CMN ̃TM5GPgjk|}/0022335689;<DGQW0022335689;<TWë(‰43⁄4ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ „„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „Ø „LÿÆØ ^„Ø `„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „ ̈„ ̃þÆ ̈^„ ̈`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.€ „x„ ̃þÆx^„x`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „H„LÿÆH^„H`„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.€ „è„ ̃þÆè^„è`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „ ̧„LÿÆ ̧^„ ̧`„Lÿ‡hˆH.„ „0ýÆ ^„ `„0ýo(()€ „„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „Ø „LÿÆØ ^„Ø `„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „ ̈„ ̃þÆ ̈^„ ̈`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.€ „x„ ̃þÆx^„x`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.
‚ „H„LÿÆH^„H`„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.€ „è„ ̃þÆè^„è`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „ ̧„LÿÆ ̧^„ ̧`„Lÿ‡hˆH.ë(¡Zÿvÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ^âZÀ @oôö å1⁄2|¶{ýÿ@€Œ'EV@@ÿÿUnknownÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿGï:àAxÀ ÿTimes New Roman5€Symbol3&ÿ:àCxÀ ÿArialK,‡ŸBookman Old Style"1ˆðÐh ; §Ï‹6g3±&Œ:[Õ4[Õ4!ðpp ́ ́4""@ðÜHPðÿ?äÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ1⁄2|2ÿÿ court halluserþÿà...ŸòùOh«'+'3Ù0l ̃¤°ÄÐà ðü (4 @LT\däcourt hallNormaluser140Microsoft Office Word@܃Ý+@¶ÞÍ-Ç@`^šÃŒÍ@¶ðFâ ̈Ð[ÕþÿÕÍÕœ."-+,ù®0ôhpˆ ̃ ̈° ̧À ÈÕäWipro Limited4"æTitle þÿÿÿ !þÿÿÿ#$%&'()*+,-./þÿÿÿ1234567þÿÿÿ9:; <=>?
þÿÿÿýÿÿÿBþÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀFÐLˆWâ ̈ÐD€Data ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ1Tableÿÿÿÿ"ÅWordDocumentÿÿÿÿ52SummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ0DocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ8CompO ÿÿÿÿ ÀFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.