Shobha Gupta vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5301 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                 WRIT PETITION No.39419 of 2022

O R D E R:

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"... to issue a writ or any other appropriate writ order or orders direction or directions particularly Writ Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not correcting the online data base of property tax in respect of premises bearing Municipal No.8-2-696/697 (PTIN No. 1100837791) situated at Banajara Hills, Road No.12, Hyderabad by considering representations dated 05.10.2021, 21.02.2022 and 18.08.2022 in compliance of Judgment dated 22.06.2021 passed in M.A. No.137 of 2020 as arbitrary illegal and ....".

2. Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel representing

Mr. Mohd Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner has been paying the property tax of

Rs.67,184/- per annum in respect of house bearing No.8-2-

696/697 and in the year 2015, the respondents have issued a

demand notice for an amount of Rs.16,47,237/- without following

the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of GHMC Act.

Then the petitioner has filed M.A.No.74 of 2015 on the file of Chief

Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad and by judgement

dated 06.10.2015, the appeal is allowed and the demand notice

dated 09.01.2005 issued by the respondents is set aside and the

petitioner is directed to pay the property tax of three years as

claimed in the impugned demand notice at Rs.67,184/- per

annum. He submits that the petitioner has paid the arrears and

continued to pay the tax as per the judgement passed in

M.A.No.74 of 2015. Thereafter, when the website is showing

arrears, the petitioner has further filed M.A.No.137 of 2020 and

the same was also allowed by the judgement dated 22.06.2021,

whereby the demand notice dated 03.09.2020 for an amount of

Rs.27,87,201/- was set aside. He submits that the respondents

are not following the due procedure and in spite of the judgements

passed in M.A.Nos.74 of 2015 and 137 of 2020, they have not

rectified the said mistakes and even though the petitioner is

complying with the judgement passed in M.A.Nos.74 of 2015 and

137 of 2020 and paying the arrears, no steps are taken by the

respondents to correct the data thereafter and still they are

showing in the website that the petitioner has to pay arrears in

spite of the latest judgement passed in M.A.No.137 of 2020.

3. Mr. K. Siddhardh Rao, learned standing counsel for the

respondent municipality submits that they will consider the

representation of the petitioner dated 18.08.2022 in the light of

the judgement passed by the in M.A.No.137 of 2020.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated

18.08.2022 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt

of copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.

The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand

automatically closed.

_______________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 26th October, 2022 gvl