Telangana High Court
Syed Faisal Ali vs The State Of Telangana on 31 January, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.2713 OF 2025
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Midde Arun
Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. According to the petitioner herein, he and his sister, Mrs.
Rafathunnisa Begum, are the absolute owners and possessors of Flat
Nos.301, 303 and 305 in House bearing No.6-3-1099/1/14 & 15, Lake
Melody Apartments, situated at Somajiguda, Hyderabad, under
different sale deeds and they were allotted PTIN Nos.1100620502,
1100620501 and 1100620517 respectively. They have been paying
property tax to the respondents.
3. Respondent No.3 has issued property tax demand bill
No.8727 demanding an amount of Rs.34,60,318/- in respect of the
house bearing No.6-3-1099/1/13 and 1099/1/2/2/B, situated at
Somajiguda, Hyderabad. Challenging the said demand bill, the father
of the petitioner i.e., Syed Sujath Ali, preferred an appeal vide M.A.
No.155 of 2021. Vide judgment dated 28.03.2022, learned Chief
Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, allowed the said appeal
KL,J
setting aside the aforesaid demand bill and remitted the matter back to
respondent No.3 with a direction to reassess the property tax by
visiting the schedule premises and giving reasonable opportunity to
the appellant therein before assessment of the property tax by
following principles of natural justice and also consider the principle
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred
therein while claiming property tax in respect of the schedule premises
in accordance with law.
4. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that the
respondent Corporation did not visit the said premises in compliance
with the said judgment. They have issued demand notice for the year
2023-24 demanding property tax exorbitantly without any basis in
respect of the subject property. They have also issued property tax
demand bill for the year 2024-25 without any basis and the same is
also exorbitant. Therefore, he has submitted a representation dated
13.03.2024 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 with a request to re-assess the
property tax in respect of the subject flats. Despite receiving and
acknowledging the said representation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 did
not act upon the same. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ
KL,J
petition to declare the said demand notice dated 22.12.2023 for the
year 2023-24 and another notice for the year 2024-25, as illegal.
5. Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for
GHMC, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner and his sister
are due and liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,28,759/- in respect of the
aforesaid subject flats. On receipt of representation dated 13.03.2024,
respondent No.3 has issued a notice dated 23.03.2024 fixing hearing
date on 27.03.2024 at 11.30 A.M. Neither the petitioner, nor his sister
appeared before respondent No.3 in the inquiry held on 27.03.2024.
They have not submitted any record. In proof of the same, he has
filed copy of notice along with written instructions. However,
respondent No.3 will consider the documents, if any, submitted by the
petitioner and his sister and also after hearing them, he will dispose of
the said representation dated 13.03.2024. He will also consider the
judgment dated 28.03.2022 in M.A. No.155 of 2021.
6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is
disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation
dated 13.03.2024 submitted by the petitioner, visit the aforesaid
subject flats and then dispose of it in accordance with the procedure
laid down under GHMC Act, 1955. He shall complete the said
KL,J
exercise within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.3
on his behalf and on behalf of his sister on the date fixed by him and
shall co-operate with him in disposal of the aforesaid representation
dated 13.032024 submitted by the petitioner within the aforesaid
timelines. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall issue fresh bill for
the years 2023-24 and 2024-25. In the circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
this writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
31st January, 2025
Mgr
