Banda Vishwanatham vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5658 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                    AND

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                    WRIT APPEAL No.724 of 2022


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


      Heard Mr. V.M.M.Chary, learned counsel for the appellant;

Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader for

Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department for

respondent No.1; Mr. K.Siddharth Rao, learned Standing Counsel

for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

29.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2022 in W.P.No.39733 of 2022 filed by the

appellant as the writ petitioner.

3. Appellant has filed the related writ petition questioning

the action of respondent Nos.3 & 4 in raising demand of property

tax against the appellant quantified at Rs.1,29,67,331.00 out of

the total arrears of Rs. 2,61,47,458.00 as per the One Time

Settlement scheme.

                                     2                        HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                        W.A.No.724 of 2022

4. I.A.No.1 of 2022 was filed by the appellant seeking an

interim direction from the Court to the respondents not to

interfere with the rights of the appellant following demand of

property tax vide the demand notice dated 11.10.2022.

5. I.A.No.2 of 2022 was filed seeking an interim direction

from the Court to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the

above demand.

6. Basic contention of the appellant before the learned

Single Judge was that the demand notice dated 11.10.2022 is

directed towards a fictitious entity called 'B.R. Associates' being

the defaulter though the details of the property mentioned therein

belongs to the petitioner.

7. Learned Single Judge dismissed the two interlocutory

applications by holding as follows:

"According to the petitioner, he is the owner of M/s Amarawathi theatres and there are no shops and they are not concerned with the entity M/s B.R. Associates. He submits that he has paid the entire dues of Rs.1,65,768/- availing OTS and the demand that is raised is without basis and without 3 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.724 of 2022

any notice. Even without going into the other details, there cannot be any dispute that this Amarawathi theatres is in an extent admeasuring 17696 square feet. According to the petitioner, he has paid arrears from 2014 till 2022 and the amount is Rs.1,00,000/- for a commercial building, which on the face of it, appears to be not tenable and it supports the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

Particularly the issue with regard to Amarawathi shops and M/s B.R. Associates cinema theatre, the argument put-forth before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered unless a detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. Nothing has been placed on record to show that when the petitioner is not using the property from 2014 to 2022, what has been done by the petitioner, whether he has gone to the respondents seeking vacancy remission and what is the communication, correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents. When there are two PTI Nos. it is not open to the petitioner to say that both of them are one and the same theatre and there are no shops. All these disputed questions at this point of time cannot be looked into by this Court. When a demand is raised by the respondents and when the petitioner failed to put forth any of the tenable ground for keeping quiet from 2014, even with regard to the names that are mutated in the municipal records, which are also known to this petitioner, this Court cannot grant any interim order. However, this Court also expressed that if the petitioner is ready to deposit some amounts his interim relief can be considered for which learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the amounts. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any interim order at this stage."

                                   4                       HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                     W.A.No.724 of 2022

8. We find from the materials on record that the name of

the entity M/s. B.R. Associates is mentioned in the municipal

records from the year 2014 onwards. The relationship between

the appellant and M/s. B.R. Associates is required to be discerned

from the materials on record though according to Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) authority, both are

inter-related and enjoying the subject municipal property.

Learned Single Judge took the view that questions raised by the

appellant in the writ proceeding are highly contentious which has

been further compounded by the appellant in not placing on

record relevant documents pertaining to the subject municipal

property for the period from 2014-2022. According to learned

Single Judge, in the absence of such detailed particulars and in

the absence of counter affidavit by the respondents, interim relief

sought for by the appellant cannot be granted.

9. Further, learned Single Judge had offered proposal to

the appellant that if the appellant deposits certain amount, Court

would consider the prayer for stay.

                                  5                      HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                   W.A.No.724 of 2022

10. In the today's hearing also, we offered the proposal to

learned counsel for the appellant that if the appellant is willing to

deposit 50% of the demand, we may consider staying the demand

notice.

11. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits

that appellant is not in a position to pay any amount, appellant

having already paid Rs.1,65,768.00 while availing One Time

Settlement scheme.

12. In appeal, we are not inclined to interfere with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge, more so when the writ

petition is pending for consideration. It will be open to the

appellant to renew the prayer for stay once GHMC files the

counter affidavit and appellant also files additional documents to

remove the lacuna as pointed out by the learned Single Judge.

13. Subject to the above observation, we are not inclined to

entertain the appeal.

14. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there

shall be no order as to costs.

                                  6                     HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                  W.A.No.724 of 2022

15. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

__________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J

Date: 07.11.2022 KL