Telangana High Court
Shobha Gupta vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 27 October, 2022
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.39445 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-S (PTIN No.1100837788) 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".
2. Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel
representing Mr. Mohd Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for
the petitioner, submits that before 2015, the petitioner has been
paying the property tax of Rs.67,184/- per annum in respect of
the house bearing No.8-2-696/697-S and when a notice was
issued directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 16,93,326/-, he has
filed M.A.No.75 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small
Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the same was allowed by
judgement dated 06.10.2015 setting aside the demand notice
dated 09.01.2005 issued by the respondent Corporation and
directed the petitioner 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 judgment passed in
2 LK, J
W.P.No.39445 of 2022
M.A.No.75 of 2015. Learned Senior Counsel submits that
thereafter, when the respondent Corporation has demanded the
petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.28,35,495/- he filed
M.A.No.138 of 2020 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small
Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the same was allowed by
judgment dated 22-06-2021 setting aside the demand notice
dated 03-09-2020. He submits even after that the respondent
Corporation is not correcting the online data base of property tax
in respect of the premises of the petitioner. He submits that in
spite of the judgments passed in M.A.Nos.75 of 2015 and 138 of
2020, the respondent Corporation has not rectified the said
mistakes and even though the petitioner has complied with the
directions in the said judgments, 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 and
hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. Mr. K. Siddhardh Rao, learned standing counsel for the
respondent Corporation, submits that the respondent
Corporation will consider the representation of the petitioner
dated 18.08.2022 in the light of the judgement passed in
M.A.No.138 of 2020.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner
3 LK, J
W.P.No.39445 of 2022
dated 18.08.2022 and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order. No order as to costs.
5. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
27th October, 2022
sj
