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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamu.s declaring the order of the 1st respond5nt dated 1.9.2008 confirming the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 22.07.2008 confirming the demand notice dated 9.4.2008 and the distraint order dt. 2.5.2008 are illegal, without jurisdiction and to set aside the same and consequently declare that the writ petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as NALA Tax for the year 1963-2004 under the provisions of A.P. Non-Agriculture Land Assessment Act, 1963 read with provisions of Act 4 of 2006. l.A. NO: 1 Ot;2008(WPMP. NO: 33021 OF 2008) i i 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 demand notice dated 9.4.2008 and consequential distraint order Lr.No.E/NAL,A/2008 dated 2.5.2008 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Secunderabzrd, pending disposal of the writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OIr2009(WVMP. NO: 117 OF 2009) Between:

1. The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 2. The Rr>venue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 3. The SSrecial Revenue lnspector, Mandal Revenue Office, Secunderabad. AND Airport Authority of lndia rep. by its Airport Director, Begumpet Airport, Hyder:rbad. ...PETlTlONERs ...RESPONDENT 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 orders passed in WPtvlP No. 33021 of 2008 in WP No. 25275 of 2008, dt:2:7.11.2008, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for lthe Petitioner: SRI TAGORE BALA' ' Counsel for tlhe Respondents: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY, GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HICH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD : HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ANI) HON'BLE SIU IUSTICT] SUDDALA CIIALAPATHI RAO WRII' PETIT'ION NO.25275 OF 2OO8 DATE: 18.12.2025 Between: Airport Authority of lndia, rep.by its Airport Dirc'ctor, Begunr pet Airport, Hyderabad. Ancl The Colle'ctor, I [yderabad [)istrict, Nampally statiotr road, ['Iyderabad and trt o others. Petitioner Responc{ents OI{DI:R: (per Hon'ble Sri lustice Suddala Clmlapathi Rao) '['he instant writ petitiorr has been fited challenging the order of the L't respondent dated 10.09.2008, confirming the order of the I{evenue Divisional Ol'['iccr, dated 22.07.2008, affirming the demand notice clated 09.04.2008 and the distraint orcler No.E/NALA/2008, dated 02.05.2008 issr-recl by the'Iahsildar, Secunderabad Mandal, as illega[, arbitrary, r,vithotrt juriscliction. and c'onsequently to set aside the same and to declare that the writ petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as NAI-.A T'ax for the year 19$-2A04 under the provisionsi of Andhra Pradesh Non-Agriculture Land Assessment 2 Act7963, r'ead with provisions of Act 3 of 2006.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the writ petitioner is Airport Authority of lndia (AAI), which is a major pubtic utitity service, dedicated to the overall development of aviation related inJrastruci:ure and service under the Act made by the Parliament. That the 3'd respondent has raised the demand upto the year 2005-06 under thr: provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Assessment Act 7963 (for short, 'Act, 1963') for the area which is being userd by the writ petitioner for its activities and the writ petitioner has paid the same and in the meanwhile, the said Act has been repealed in the year 2006, thereby a nevv enacturent,by name, the State of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Larrd (Conversion for Non- agricultural Purpose) Act, 2006 (for short,'Act,2006') was enacted on

02.01,.2006,. Further, it is contended that till the repeal of the NALA Act, 2003, the writ petitioner has paid the said tax on Proper assessment orders and den-rands made by the respondents for the area used by the writ petitioner. 'fhough the said Act was repealed in the year 2006, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 without any notice and proper enquiry, without there being ally assessment orders have t -- I s $ r f, t i; i 3 raised the demand for an amount of Rs.94,81,000/- for the period corrunencing from 1963-2004 and consequently issued a distraint order dated 02.05.2008 demanding the amount stating that some of the land which was used by the writ petitioner was not included under the previous assessments orders. It was contended by the petitioner that though said facts were brought to the notice of the Tahsildar, Secunderabad Mandal, the 3'.1 respondent issued the said demand and disfraint order without conducting any enquiry or notice, despite the Act being repealed in the year 2006 and the respondent Nos.2 without proper appreciation have confirmed the said order of the 3.d respondent.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner that, by virtue of repeal of Act 74/1,963, no assessment proceedings can be initiated for the previous period and that the saving clause under Section 15(2Xb) of the Act, 2006, has no relevance since the alleged demand is not for the recovery of arrears which has been already assessed and payable under the provisions of the Act prior to the said repeal. "l'he learned counsel contends that the question of fresh assessment orders from 7963-2004 does not arise in view of the repeal of the said NALA Act in the year 2006 and the assessment 4 orders carlnot be reopened or re-assessed and the said impugned demands and distraint order are without authority of law, as such, the demand raised by proceedings dated 09.04.2008 for the period of 7963-2004 after repeal oi the Act, are per se illegal, arbitrary, and also violative of due principles of law, and in violation of principles of natural ju:;tice.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing; for resporrdents would submit that though the Act was repealed in the year 2006, the period is from 7963-2004 i.e., previous to the repeal of the said Act. Further, it is contended that the saving clause under the Repeal Act would save all the assessments made before th,: period of repeal of the Act and contended that as the assessmelrt period is 7963-2004, the petitioner is liable to pay the demande,l tax and the said authorities have not committed any error, but fairl,,z admitted that no assessment orders are passed by conductirrg enquiry before the repeal of the Act, and that the writ petition ir; devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

5. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue / 5 Mr.Muralidhar Reddy and having given earnest consideration to their submissions, have perused the material on record.

6. The onlv question which arises for determination in the instant case is that, whether the impugned orders of demand raised by the 2nd and 3'd respondents for the period 7963-2004 are maintainable without there being any orders of assessment made before the repeal of the Act.

7. Evidently, the period for which demand was raised pertaining to 7963-200a by notice dated 09.04.2008 after the repeal of the Act in

2006. Further, by virtue of repeal of NALA Act on 01.02.006, though there is a saving clause in the repeal act, the demands made as per the assessment orders passed before the repeal of the said Act and can be legatly valid and that evidently there are no orders passed by the 2n'r respondent for the said period 1963-2004 before the repeal of the Act, by conducting an enquiry, payable by the writ petitioner Even assuming neither there was an enquiry nor there were any assessment proceedings prassed by the 2n.l respondent even before the repeal of the Act, and the authorities have not issued any notice to the petitioner before raising any demand purportedly before the repeal of the Act. "l'hus, or-rce the Act has been repealed, there would 6 be no dernand subsequent to the repeal of the Act and only those assessmerLts, which were passed earlier to the repeal Act, which are passed b1' conducting due enquiry would t,e saved utrder saving clause of the repeal Act. In such of the view of the matter, as there are no assesstnent orders passed by the frrct 3n6[ 3'd respondents before the repeal of the Act, and the 1't respondetrt w'ithout appreciating the said fact, mechanically upheid the said orders of the /nd and Jrd respondents. Thus, in our considered opinion, the impugned orders of demand of tax for the period 7963-2004 w'iLhout there being anv assessmetrt orders before the repeal of the Act are pe:r se illegal, unjustifiecl and untenable, and the 2nd apd l,r'cl respondents have no jurisdicti<tn to Pass or demand any subsequcrrt to the repeal of the Act, mor(t so, it is also not the case of the resproudents that the writ petitioner: is due of arrears where the assessment orders have been passed b,:fore the repeat of the Act. lrr such view of the matter, the impugned orders are unjustified, invalid ancl liable to be set aside and the contention of learned Government Pleader that, as the period of demand is before the repeal of the Act i.e. frorn'1963-2004, without there being any assessment orders, is untenable and is accordingly rejected. I a. :1 , \

8. [n view of the above stated findings, the order of L't respondent 7 dated 01.09.2008, confirming the order of Revenue Divisional Officer dated 22.07.2008 and the demand notice dated 09.04.2008 and the distraint order dated 02.05.2008, are hereby declared as illegal, void, without there being any jurisdiction, hence set aside and consequently, the impugned notice dated 09.04.2008 and distraint order No.E/NALA /2008, dated 02.05.2008 are hereby quashed.

9. Accordingly, the writ Petition is allowed. 'fhere shall be no order as to costs . Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH, The Chief Justice on this Thursday, the Eighteenth Day of December, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. SD/. B.REKHA ASSISTANT //TRUE COPYII. OFFICER To, '1. The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Secunderabad 3. The Special Revenue lnspector, [Vandal Revenue Office, Secunderabad. 4. One CC to SRI TAGORE BALA, Advocate TOPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at , Hyderabad. Hyderabad IOUTI

6. Two CD Copies BSR TKS HIGH COURT DATED i 1811212025 ORDER WP.No.ll5275 of 2008 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOI'T COSTS S 3(J [ 5 ii:l 2i126 * * {