Punjala Vinay Kumar v. The State of Telengana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent not to insist the petitioner herein to pay property tax of Rs. 65, 15,695/- in respect of her property bearing H.No.8-2-2931821A1735, Road No. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, without following : due procedure of law as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of lndia besides Principles of natural justice and also in violations of GHMC Act and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 'l OF 2022 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the respondent inisisting the petitioner to pay property tax of 65,15,695/- in respect of her property bearing H.No.B-2- 2g3t}2lAtz3s, Road No. 36. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl E.VENKATA SIDDHARTHA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 : Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondents No.2to4 : SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER r-] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITI ON No.684 OF 2022 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (GHMC) in insisting the petitioner to pay property tax of Rs.65,15'6951- (Rupees sixty five lakhs fifteen thousand and six hundred and ninety five only) towards his property bearing H.No.8-2-293l821N735, Road No'36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14, 2l and 300A of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and also in violation of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (GHMC AcO.

2.1. It is submitted that the petitioner is owner of the house bearing No.8-2-293l82 1N735, Road No.36, Jubilee I-Iills, l-Iyderabad' The petitioner approached respondent No.2 - the Commissioner, GHMC, for the purpose of building permission on the subject propefiy' The petitioner was informed that there are affears of property tax to a tune of Rs.65,15,695/- and the said amount represents arrears of properly tax from 2009 onwards in respect of the subject property' i I I I i ) BVRJ Hence, respondent No.2 insisted the petitioner to pay property tax. The petitioner sent notice dated 22.11.2021 to the GHMC on

22.11.2021 e:tpressing his willingness to pay the property tax for the current year and past two years.

2.2. lr is submitted that as per the judgement ol this Courl in C.E. Cooper v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabadr and V.K. Roy v Conrmissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad2, GHMC is nor entitled to recover arrears of property tax beyond three (3) years. In the similar circumstances in W.P. No.1239 I of 202l,by I taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court, demand notice issued to the petitioner therein was set aside by this Court.

3.1. Respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commissioner. GHMC, filed counter atfidavit contending that the petitioner neglected to pay the propefty tax to the GHMC intentionally even after receipt of tax demand notices in respect of the subject property as per the GHMC Act. The petrtioner was issued regular telephone messases to pay the propefty tax. The assessed payment history of the petitioner was verified with reference to PTIN 1100856069 and found that the ' toszls; alr aoo 1os1 'zooz(+)aLorrr(oe) 3 petitioner has paid Rs.6,32,3701- on 11.03.2022 towards par1 payment of property tax. After adjustment of the said amount, the petitioner is due the following amounts towards arrears of propefiy tax: "Arrear Tax Rs.28,45,665/.. Arrear Interest Current Tax Rs.50,57,084 Rs.2,10,790/- Cunent Interest Rs.21,080/- Cheque bouncc penalty Rs.-Nil- Total tax due Rs.81,34,619/r'

3.2. It is submitted that as per Section 276 of the GHMC Act 1955, the propefty tax due is being recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has let out the subject property to a car showroom viz., [.uxurv Ridez.

3.3. Subsequently, additional counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 stating that the petitioner is liable to pay latest dues as under: "Arrear Tax Anear Interest Current Tax Rs.30,56,4551 Rs.56,62,1 10/- Rs.2,10,790/- Current Interest Rs.21.080i- Total tax due Rs.89,50,435/-" 4 BVRJ

3.4. It is submitted that the petitioner was using the subject property for commercial purpose and property tax demand is generated on the subject property bearing PTIN 1100856069. The petitioner is trying to rnislead this Court, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard Mr. E. Venkata Siddhartha, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and Nth'. M. Arun Kumar, learned standing counsel for GHMC, and perused the material on record.

5. Thc learned standing counsel for GHMC fumished current assessment piLyment history of the subject property which shows that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.92,81,361/- (Rupees ninety two lakhs eighty one thousand and three hundred and sixty one only) towards arrears of propefiy tax.

6. In W.P. No.39694 of 2012 dated 21.03.2024. a Division Bench of this Court held as under: *7 . The Division Bench of this Cou( in V.K.Roy (supra) has held that under Sections 23 and 278 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1950, propefty tax can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. However, the recovery can be rcsorted to as arrears of land revenue only I ' l I I I : ) for the amount payable within three years prior to demand notice. In case of a period beyond three years, the Corporation has to file a suit in the civil court subject to law of limitation and the property tax cannot be recovered under the Revenue Recovcry Act.

8. This Court by an interim order dated 31.12.2012 had directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the credit of the Corporation. The aloresaid amount has becn paid by the petitioner to the Corporation.

9. In view olthe law laid down by the Division Bench ol this Court in V.K.Roy (supra), the impugned demand notice dated 13 .10.2012 as well as the final notice dated I

17.12.2012 insofar as it pertains to recovery of property tax beyond the period 16.12.2009 is hereby quashed. However, liberry is reserved to the Corporation to take an action for rccovery olthe balance amount ofproperty tax in a civil suit subject to law of limitation." { a

7. ln view of the 1aw laid down bv this Coufi in the aforesaid decisions, the writ petition is allowed in part directing the GHMC authorities not to insist the petitioner to pay propedy tax for the period prior to 2019. The assessment history of,the petitioner shows that curent tax payable by the petitioner is Rs.2,10,790/- towards propefty tax Hence, the petitioner is directed to pay property tax three (3) years prior to tiling of the writ petition i.e., for the period from 2019-20, 6 BI'I" 2020-21 and 2021-22 (three years) and current tax a1 the rate of Rs.2,10,790/- fron 2022-23,2023-24 and 2024-25. The property tax, if any, paid b1 the petitioner during pendency of the writ petition shall be adjusted towards arrears of current Lax for the aforesaid assessment years. The CHMC authorities are at liberty to institute civil suit for recovery of arears of property tax prior to 2019 subject to law of limitation. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if'any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPYi/ SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL D PI'TY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary (MAUD), Secretariat Building, State of Telangana' Hyderabad

2. The commissioner, Greater Hyderabad tr/lunicipal corporation, Hyderabad 3. The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle No '1 0B (18), Khairtabad' Hyderabad

4. The Bill Collector, GHMC, Circle No.10B (18), Khairtabad, Hyderabad' 5. One CC to SRI E.VENKATA SIDDHARTHA, Advocate lOPUCl 6.TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLAD|VNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUT]

7. One CC to SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC' [OPUC] B. Two CD CoPies. BSK BS I l HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 ORDER WP.No.684 of 2022 {t+t. o 01 flAY 2025 t PAtcll { a PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I