High Court · 2025

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 a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ of declaring the letters bearing Nos. D/'1354/2007 dt. 8-2-2008 and 7-3-2008 issued by the second respondent collectively marked as Exhibit P-1 as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 't 4 and 30 .of Constitution of lndia without jurisdiction ultravires section 88 of A.P. Municipalities Act, illegal and void and consequently restrain the respondents from any demand for payment of vacant land tax and/or property tax under the said letters. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 8130 OF 2008 ) Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the letters bearing Lr.No D/'1 354 t07 dl. B-2- 2008 and 7 -3-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent collectively markecl as Exhibit P-1 pending disposal of the above writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WVMP. NO: 1369 OF 200 8) Between:

1. TheVikarabadfrilunicipality,Vikarabad,,RangaReddyDistrict,Rep.bythe Commissioner. ...PETITIONERS/R-2 AND

1. 2 3 Anwarul-ul-Uloom Educational Association,, Registered Undder A.p. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, having their Head Office at New [\/allepally Hyderabad-s00 001, Rep. by the Honou]ary Secretary and Conespondent, Mahaboob Alam Khan Anwarul-ul-Uloom College of Engineering &, Technology a Minority lnstitution at Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by the Honburary Conespondent, Mahaboob Alam Khan ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS The Govemment of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal, Administration and Urban Development (TC) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by Principal Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order dt.25-3-2008 passed in WplVp 8130/2008 in Wp 6237t2008. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B NALIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P.RAJEEV REDDY, ASST.cp, REPRESENTED BY ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.6237 OF 2008 ORDER; (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Rajeev Reddy, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader representing the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. The instant is a writ petition that has been filed assailing the two demand Notices dated 08.02.2008 and 07.03.2008 issued by the Municipal Council, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, whereby, the property tax has been demanded from the petitioners between I 995 - 1996 till 2007-08.

3. Against the said demand notices, the petitioners upon filing of the present writ petition had also obtained an interim protection which again still in operation.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that when the originat writ petition was filed by the petitioners, they had primarily approached the Court and had obtained an interim order ./ I 2 under the unamended Act as it stood in the year 1988. wherein, all the buildings owned by the registered educational institutions were exempted from payment of property tax. Hov, ever, the said provision stood modified by way of an amendment that was brought in the year 1994, wherein, in order ro ger an exemlttion from payment of property tax, the educational institutions would have to show that they are registered and charitable institutions. The enquiry, so far as whether the petitioners' institutions are charitable institutes or not does not seem to have been undertaken either at the behest of the petitioners or at the level of the Department.

5. Leamed counsel for the petitioners ref'erred to the Full Bench decision of this High Court in W.P.No.42l4 of 2006 and batch, decided on 28.12.2006, wherein, after hearing of the counsel appearing for the parties, the matters stood remanded to the concerned authorities for taking a call on the aspect whether the educational institutions would fall within the purwiew of the charitable institutes or not. For ready reference, the rclevant portion 3 of the said order passed by the Fuil Bench of this High Court in the said batch of writ petitions is reproduced hereinunder: "Therefore, with the consent of the leamed counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petitions as well with art observation that before levying of the tax on the petitioners, institutions. the authorities concerned should address to the question as to whether the institutions are charitable institutions or not and for such purpose the petitioners are at liberty to make representations to the concemed authorities within one month and after considering such representations, the authorities may pass appropriate orders since at no point of time the authorities have considered whether the petitioners' institutions are charitable institutions or not. Therefore, we are passing such orders to enable the authorities to pasi fresh orders after considering the submissions of the petitioners. We are also quashing the impugned notices. The respondents shall be at liberty to raise fresh ctafins, if any, after hearing the petitioners and deciding their claim that thev are charitable institutions".

6. Given the said factual matrix of the case and also considering the fact that firstly, the matter is pending before this Court for last 17 years and there is also an interim order in operation in favour ofthe petitioners. Secondly, the respondents do not seem to have reached to the conclusion whether the petitioners, institutions falls under charitable institutes so as to entail them the ./ 4 --,1 benefit of exemption of payment of property tax. \ /e are of the considered opinion that the present writ petition 1o the aforesaid extent can be disposed of at this juncture holding that the impugned notices dated 08.02.2008 and 07.03.2008 issued by the respondents shall as ofnow be kept in abeyan'0e i.e., to say that the respondents shall not try to enforce the same. Meanwhile, the petitioners, in tum, shall approach the respondents concerned and shall make their detailed response/representation establishing the fact that they meet the requirements as it enunciated in the amended pror,'isions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, so as to enable them the exemption from payment of property tax.

7. Let response/representation by the petitioners be made before the concemed authorities, Within a period of tbur (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents shall thereafter, conduct whatever enquiry/scrutiny that is required and for which the petitioners shall render all cooperation and thereafter, take appropriate decision whether tJre petitioners' institutions are entitled for exemption from payment of property tax or not. Till then, the impugned notices dared 08.02.2008 and

07.03.2008 shall remain in abeyance.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Perition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY S TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal, Administration and Urban Development (TC) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Vikarabad tvlunicipality, Vikarabad,, Ranga Reddy District 3. One CC to SRI B.NALIN KUMAR, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies. BSK PVL w (/ HIGH COURT DATED:0210712025 a, 0B $t 206 \-. i.r \i. l\ "r j ,. - ORDER WP.No.6237 ot 2008 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS slDl ,-\ \