High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring of the respondents herein particularly respondent No. 2 to 4 in issuing Notice of Demand in Docket No. '1807, dated Nil, with respect to petitioners property bearing H.No. 2-4-555lA, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secundrabad (PTIN No 1180202695) under Section 269 (2) of the GHMC Act, 1955 in pursuant to notice dated 2110212025 issued under Section 269 (1) of the GHMC Act, 1955 against a dead person, demanding to pay arrears beyond three (3) years, inspite of petitioners representation dated 10/05/2024 as highly illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article 14 and 21, contrary to Sec 278-A of the GHMC Act, 1955 consequentially set aside the impugned Notice of Demand in Docket No. 1807, dated Nil, with respect to property bearing H.No.2-4-555iA, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secundrabad (PTIN No 1180202695) under Section 269 (2) and 269 (1) of the GHMC Act, 1955 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the ,lircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct respondents herein not to execute Distress warrant pursuant to Notice of Demand in Docket No. '1807, dated Nir, with respect to croperty bearing H.No. 2-4-5551A, Nallagurta Ramgoparpet, secundrabad (prN \o 1.180202695) under Section 269 (2) of rhe cHI\,4C Act, .1955 pending main wiit pertition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MIR MUKARRAM ALI Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to4: SRI G. MADHUSUDAN REDDy, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PDTITION No.7O74 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Mir Mukarram Ali, learned. counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. According to the petitioner, his father late Sri Mohammed Moosa was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property i.e., house No.2-4-555/A, admeasuring 5 13 square yards, situated at Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad arrd the same was mutated in his name rzde PTIN No.1i80202695. He died on 17.O2.2OO8. In proof of the same, petitioner has frled copy of Death Certificate. The said fact was informed to respondents on 1O.05.2024 by way of submitting representation. Even then, 2'd respondent has issued notice of demand dated 21 .O2.2O25 demanding an amount of Rs.6,62,724 l- ftorn the petitioner herein. It is also further stated that a warrant of distress will be executed for recovery of the same with cost in terms of Section 269(ll of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal , KL,J Ll'.P.No.7074 of 2025 Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'GHMC Ac'l, distrained by attachment of his movable/immovable propertjes. Petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the said notice of demand contending that the said notice of demald is against a dead person. Therefore, it is non esf.

3. Sri G.Madhusudan Reddy, Iearrred Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that petitioner herein failed to submit the details of family members. He did not even sought for mutatiorL of his name in the Municipal records in respect of subject property. When lhe 2"d respondent insisted the petitioner to pay the property tax, he has submitted a representation dated 10.O5.2O24 and requested onlv for re-assessment of the house trax and he has not furnished the details of legal heirs of his family. However,

2.d respondent will take steps for recovery ol propert5r tax itself against legal heirs of late Sri Mohammed Moosa and petitioner has to furnish the details of the legal heirs of his father. Petitioner and his mother admitted payment of the property tax to the 2.d respondent. He has also produced a I I I l i 3 KL,J W.P.No.7O74 of 2025 written instructions of 2"d respondent. The sarne are placed on record.

4. In the light of the same, this_ Court directed learned counsel for the petitioner to furnish the details of family members of his father late Sri Mohammed Moosa' He has furnished the details uide Merno dated 07.03.2025 and the same are as follows: Smt Ruqiya Bai W/o Late Mohd Moosa aged 8O years, Occ: House wife, Mohd Zahid S/o Late Mohd Moosa, aged 45 years, Occ: Business, Mohd Shahad S/o Late Mohd Moosa, aged about 44 years, Occ: Private EmPloYee, Mohd Sajid S/o Late Mohd Moosa, aged about 42 years, Occ: Business. (A11 are resident of H-No. 2-4-5551 A, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad) Mrs Yasmeen Sultana W/o Sirajuddin Ahmed, D/o Late Mohd Moosa, aged about: 43 Years, Occ: Housewife, Plot No. 79 lndira Puri Railway Colony, West Marredpaliy, Secunderabad. Mrs Azra Sultala W/o Mohammed Kasim Qadeer D/o Late Mohd Moosa, aged about: 35 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o a3-400/5, RTC Colony, Sri Krishna Nagar Colony, Moulali, Secunderabad. Anjum Sultana W/o Mohammed Osman D/o Late 2 4 5 6 7 4 KL,J W'.P.No.7074 of 2O25 Mohd Moosa, aged about: 30 years, Or:c Housewife, H.No. C/29, 2-4-533, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad."

5. The subject house property is adnreasuring 513 squa-re yarcls. During the lifetime of late Sri Mohammed Moosa, he has sold 428 square yards, leaving 85 square yards.

6. There is no dispute that notice of demald cannot be against a dead person. Any notice of demand against a dead person is non e.sl

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that 2"d respondent has to invoke Section 278A of GHMC Act, but not Section 268 of GHMC Act. But, it isr the specific contention of 2"d respondent that he has seryed demald notices, to r.vhich the petitioner responded zurd made part pavment in the year 2022. The petitioner was well informed about the property tax dues by GHMC.

8. Therefore without going into the merits and demerits of the case, only on the said ground, impugned notice of demand dated 21.02.2025 of 2"d respondent is set t { t I :3:e1:' 5 KL,J W.P.No.7074 of 2O25 aside. Liberty is granted to 2.d respondent to initiate fresh proceedings against petitioner and aforesaid other legal heirs of late Sri Mohammed Moosa strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in GHMC Act.

9. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous .petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //rRuE coPY/' ssrsiRl'Yo#Dd'Fffik 'ec,oH%rrcea tr#i'*i"ildi*;iiruih-^#**,i*[":'w*" *!uli;n3;3"tor GHMC' North Zone' circle No 30' Begumpet' yey,,J9,Iro*'nt?!f, 5J?J,.'"?re,ansanaat *^'*"'DAN REDDY' sc FoR GHtuc ioPucl ilii3S".[SJs$f P}}1"9'd.'ifi-J BM GJP To,

2. J.

5. 6 7 8 -I I i : I HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 ORDER WP.No.7074 of 2025 'D o .J ( t tHC lila 14: e^ 11tPll 2E (. 2 sry i'c' \ I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ \t >e>9