Mr. Jagdish Patel vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3073 Tel

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

                    Writ Petition No.28446 of 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to

declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not considering the

representation given by the petitioner to respondent No.2 on 22.08.2023

in issuing demand, internet history, notices and letters on PTIN

No.1100622030 in respect of petitioner's brother property to extent of 290

square yards as GHMC assessed and allotted house number as #6-3-

1218/36 situated at Kundan Bagh, Hyderabad, without following due

process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and

300A of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government

Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing

for respondent No.1; and Sri K.Siddharth Rao, learned Standing Counsel,

appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and with their consent, the Writ

Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

3. Petitioner contends that the respondents-authorities are making a

demand for payment of property tax in respect of petitioner's brother

property bearing H.No.6-3-1218/36 situated at Kundan Bagh, Hyderabad,

for a period from 2009-10 second half onwards till 2022-23 second part,

and that the respondents-authorities cannot demand arrears of property

tax beyond a period of three years and therefore, the demand being

raised by the respondents-authorities on the owner of the building beyond

the period of three years is unsustainable.

4. Petitioner further contends that subsequent to purchase of the

aforesaid property of the petitioner's brother in the year 2007, the said

property has been demolished and there exist only a vacant plot of land

and therefore, the demand of property tax is illegal.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents would submit that a coordinate Bench of this Court in

C.M.S.A.Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 of 2021 by common judgment dated

25.11.2022, having regard to the provisions of Section 278-A of the

Greater Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, had held that the demand for

recovery of arrears of property tax can be made up to 9 years and not

beyond the period of 9 years from the date of due, and therefore, the

demand made by the respondents-authorities on the owner of the

property is valid.

6. Learned Standing Counsel would further contend that though the

petitioner claims to have demolished the property subsequent to its

purchase in the year 17.04.2007, no intimation of demolition has been

given to the respondents-authorities and thus, the claim of the owner of

the building that there exist no building cannot be accepted.

7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

8. At the outset, it is not shown to this Court that the petitioner has

demolished the subject property after issuing intimation/notice to the

respondents-authorities and in the absence of any such material being

placed before this Court, the claim of the petitioner demolishing the

building after issuing notice and calling upon the respondents-authorities

not to cause any assessment of property of tax cannot be accepted.

9. Further, as per the ratio laid down by a coordinate Bench of this

Court in C.M.S.A.No.1, 3, 4 and 5 of 2021, the claim of the petitioner that

no demand of property tax can be made beyond a period of three years

cannot be accepted and thus, the demand of the property tax made by

the respondents-authorities for a period of 9 years cannot be found fault

with. Thus, any demand made by the respondents beyond a period of 9

years from the date of due would have to be held as illegal.

10. Accordingly, having regard to the order of this Court in

C.M.S.A.No.1, 3, 4 and 5 of 2021, the respondents-authorities are directed

to collect the property tax in respect of the property bearing H.No.6-3-

1218/36 situated at Kundan Bagh, Hyderabad for a period of 9 years from

the date the said amount of property tax has fallen due.

11. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall

stand closed. No order as to costs.

___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:11.10.2023

GJ