T. Prashant v. State Of Telangana,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.14426 of 2016 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner seeking to declare the demand notice, dated 03.03.2016, issued by the respondents under Section 91 of the A.P. Municipalities Act for H.Nos.5-62 or 562/2, 5-63 & 5-63/1, Pedda Amberpet, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondents 2 & 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner, dated 16.09.2015, 30.01.2016 and 26.03.2016, pending before them.

2.

Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 1.087 square yards, situated at Amberpet Kalan, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner constructed three godowns in the schedule property admeasuring 1,000 square feet each and the respondents have allotted Door Nos.5-62 or 5-62/2, 5-63 & 5-63/1 to the godowns and the respondents evaluated the property tax to the godowns basing on the prevailing annual rental value in the vicinity. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been paying the property tax without any objection, but the respondents have been increasing the property tax very heavily every year.

4.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents initially issued demand notice for property tax on 31.03.2015, to which the petitioner submitted a representation on 16.09.2015 objecting the increase of property tax and to revise the property tax, but the respondents did not pass any orders. Thereafter, the respondents have sent another notice on 30.01.2016 demanding property tax and the petitioner again submitted a representation on 30.01.2016, but the same was not considered. Thereafter the respondents issued another notice on 03.03.2016 and the petitioner again submitted a representation on 26.03.2016 to the 2nd respondent. The respondents are threatening the petitioner for execution of distress of warrant for recovery of the property tax without considering the representations, dated 16.09.2015, 30.01.2016 & 26.03.2016, submitted by the petitioner.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent shall consider the representations submitted by the petitioner, dated 16.09.2015, 30.01.2016 & 26.03.2016, and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible. It is further informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would pay 50% of the enhanced tax amount. 6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the grievance of the petitioner and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction:

The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the representations made by the petitioner, dated 16.09.2015, 30.01.2016 & 26.03.2016, pass appropriate orders, as warranted by law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the enhanced tax amount. Subject to such payment being made, the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive measures to enforce payment of the balance 50%, till the disposal of the representations of the petitioner, dated 16.09.2015, 30.01.2016 & 26.03.2016, by the 2nd respondent.

7.

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ RAJA ELANGO,J Date: 12th June, 2017 KL

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.14426 of 2016 Date: 12th June, 2017 KL