Rajendra Kumar Kimtee v. G.H.M.C. Rep By Its Commissioner And 2 Others

t 341E I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENWFOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARAD+IE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 31770 oF m15 Between:

1. Raiendra Kumar Kimtee (DIED), S/o Sampatlalji Aged about 72 years' Occ ' b;!i#;; o'--o''ilavil i krt M i -c''i pl ;;, G' n?ounci e rvl a o ias' H vde ra b ad' ':siFs*tfi "[dF'ilHii#E;r'f"#s,*iar:m:;#;3',*:'J":l tto.tl. eaniara Hills, Hyderabad'

s. UiJi'xlili#, dl;. t;t'"'il;j;Iiia x""' Klm199'.Aoed about 61 vears' occ: Business. F/o. 8-2-686,'EL:ffi; R;i k'nj' Kimte6 Enclave' Road No'12' Baniara Hills, HYderabad a. Vikrbm Kimtee, S/o. Latd'Ralendra Kumar Kim.tee, Aged about 54 yeqq'. O*: Business. R/o. 8-2-680,'i;;hp' R;j Kuni' Kimiee" Enclave' Road No'12' Banjara Hills, HYderabad '

(Petitioner Nos'2 to 4 are brought on records as. Lrs of deceased Petitioner i\":i:1;' bJ,--ci,i,,t tiloEi"it"'si'-d:[oii'-'id' tANo l or 2024' in WP.No.31770 of 2015) ...'ET'TIONER AND 1 Greater Hvderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner' LowerTaik Bund Road, Hvderabad

2. The Deputy Comrs.ion"llb"iJ"t-"i nyo"t'bad Municipal Corporation Circle- '10. Hvderabad 3 si;tJtii;ffi;gana, Rep. bv its Principal secretary', MAanduD Dept'' Secretariat, Hyderabad'

...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of the writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing demand notice for property tax for Ptot No. 23, Road No 12' Baniara Hills' Hyderabad for the assessment year 2015-16 and in illegally collecting' retaining and not refunding a sum of Rs. 5,76,991/- towards vacant land tax for the assessmenl years 20O9-10'

2010-11 , 2O11-12, 2012-13, 2O13-14 contrary to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in WP.No. 31515 of 2010 and WP No. 22115 of 2010 dated 11-10-2013, iilegat and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the Respondent to refund or release the sum of Rs. 5,76,99'l/- to the Petitioner or alternatively direct the Respondent to adjust the amount of Rs. 5,76,991/- collected towards future payment of property tax on property bearing plot No. 23 , Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 41 067 0F 2015) Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend all further proceedings or actions of the Respondents pursuant to the demand notice bill No.100064124 for property tax for the assessment year 201516 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. PREETHI FOR SRt V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR. SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER

'.,L THE HOII'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE J. SREENTVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.3177O ol2015 ORDER.' eer the Honble si Ju.stie J. Sreeniuas Ro.o) Petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in issuing demand notice for payment of property tax contrary to the Division Bench decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.Nos.31515 of ?OLO and 22115 of 2Ol3 dated 11.10.2013.

2. Heard Ms.Preethi, learned counsel representing Sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for the respondents.

3.

Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that petitioner was the absolute owner and possessor of the land bearing plot No.23, Road No.12,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, admeasuring approximately 610 sq. yards and the sarne was purchased in the year 1968 and in the said property, he erected a small tin shed without any RCC roof for the purpose of securit5r personnel to safeguard the electric connection and meter' The subj ect land is an open and vacant land. Respondent Nos'l and 2 lllegalTy demanded and collected vacant land tax since 2OO9-201O to 2Ol3-2O14 ald he paid an amount of Rs'5,76,991/- for the said period. Petitioner submitted representations on O2.O4.2O1tL and 14.07.2015 requesting the respondent authorities to refund the vacant land tax paid by him, as the subject larrcl is not liable for payment of tax as per the order passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabac in W.P.Nos.315i5 of 2O1O and 22115 of 2013 dated 11. t0.20 13. In spite of repeated requests made by petitioner, the respondent authorities have not refunded the said amolrnt, on the other hand issued demand notice lor payment of the property tax for the assessment year 20 152O 16. Hence, petitioner frled the present writ Petition'

4.

Submissions of learaed counsel for the petitioner: 4.1. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject land is open and vacant land and the respondent authorities ought not to have collected the vacant land tax of an amount of Rs.5,76,991/- from 2OO9-2O|O to 2OI3-2O14. In spite of the representations submitted by petitioner dated O2.O4.2O12 and 14.07.2015, the respondent authorities have not taken any steps to consider the claim of the petitioner for refund of the above said amount, on the other hand issued demand notice and the same is contrary to law. 4.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in K. Rajiv v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep- by its Secretary and two othersl.

5.

Submissions of learned Standing Counsel for the respoadents:

karned Standing Counsel submitted that the subject property is liable for pa5rment of vacant land tax and the ' lol,r (l) AI-D l70 ;.

respondent authorities had rightly issued demand notice for payment of tax and the petitioner is not entitled for tl.e relief sought in the writ petition. He submitted that respondent Nos.l and 2 will consider the representations submitted by petitioner in accordance with law and requested this Court to grant reasonable time.

Analysis:

6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by l the respective parties and perused the records. Admittedly, this Court in K. Rajiv (supra) while considering the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ActJ and the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Assessment of Properfy) Tax Rules, 1990, specihcaily held that the scheme of taxation in the Act, levying of tax on the vacant lards other than the land appurtenar.t to the buildings as provided under Section 21212) of the Act is ultra uires, unauthoiz.ed and illegal.

7. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioner specifically clSimed that the subject propert5r is open and

vacant land and he has not made any construction except a sma.ll tin shed without any RCC roof. It reveals from the record that petitioner has submitted representations to respondent No.2 on O2.O4.2O12 and 14.07.2015 for refund of the tax, which was already paid by him for the years from 2OO9-2O|O to 2Ol3-2O14 to an amount of Rs.5,76,991/- by enclosing the copy of the decision of this Court in K. Rajiv (supra). However, the respondent authorities have not passed any order.

8. It is relevant to mention that whether in the subject property, the petitioner made construction or it is open and t t vacant land, is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be adjudicated at this juncture in the writ petition on the ground that the respondent authorities have not filed colrnter afhdavit nor passed any order on the representations submitted by petitioner.

g.

Hence, this Court is of the considered view and to meet the ends of justice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representations submitted by petitioner dated \

O2.O4.2O12 arrd 14.07.2015 and pass speaking order, by duly taking into consideration the decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court in K. Rajiv (supra), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a.copy of this order, after giving opportunity to the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 including personal hearing.

10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Miscellaleous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

SD/. P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// 'l\ 1\- -- SECTION OFFICER To '1. The commis,s.ioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipar corporation, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad

2. The. Deputy cr5mmissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation circle10, Hyderabad 3' The Principal Secretary, MA and UD Dept., secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telanagana.

4. One CC to SRI V.HAR| HARAN. Advocate tOpt.tct

5. One CC to SRt MTDDE ARUN{UMAR, SC'FOR dnMC topucl

6. lwo ccs to Gp FoR MCPL ADMN-URBAN oev, Higrr iourt roi tne state of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies PSK.

PSK

HIGH COURT DATED:31 t12t2024

ORDER

WP.No.31t70 ot 2015 |F 1t\E, ST.r15 ( ('

e oo 3 0 J[\ ?iz'x I t Dg5narctr'

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS // /,t 2/'y' /25