The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. OIVYA RAI SOHNI Sri.Kishore Sai, Standing Gonsel for Counsel for the Respondent: SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL FOR GHMC The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI WSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Civil Miscellaneous Second Aooeal No.22 of 2O25 JUDGMEN7l. The present CMSA is filed aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 08.07.2025, passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, in MA.No.28 of 2025, whereunder and whereby the learned Judge while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant herein directed the appellant herein to pay 3O% of the arnount demanded in the impugned Distress Warrant d.ated24.O2.2025, within one month from the date of Judgment'

2. The appellant herein is the appellant and respondents herein are respondents in the MA

3. The factual matrix of the case in nut-shell, which led to frling of the present CMSA is that the appellant filed MA'No'29 of 2025 under Section 282 of the GHMC Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1955') against the Distress Warrant dated

24.O2.2O25,videPTINNo.1O515O357Oinrespectoftheproperry bearing door No.15-1-678, 678/L &' 2/B, situated at Gosha Mahal road, Hyderabad. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondent Corporation has issued Distress Warrant dated "/ ''/ 2 CMSA.No.22 of 2025

24.02.2025 by revising the property tax of thc subject property, exorbitantly, from Rs.25,304/_ p.a. to Rs.31,120.623/_, without following the procedure prescribed under lire Act which mandates issuance of notice before revising the tr x. Further, the respondent Corporation failed to consider thc r epresentations dated 20.O3.2018, 26.O2.2}tg, 03.O2.2O21 tO.O2.2022, 06.O3.2023, 10.O3.2024 and. 20.O2.2025 sulrlritted by the appellant challenging the enhancement of propcr t., tax

4. The appellate Court allowed MA.No.2S ,f 2025 vide impugned order dated Oa.OZ.2O2S setting ssi,1r the distress warrant dated 24.O2.2025 a_nd remanded tlre matter to respondent Corporation to assess the tax ol the schedule property afresh, in accordance with the proct:rrtrre laid down under GHMC Act, by duly affording opportunity ro rhe 2pp6ltalt, subject to the appellant paying 3oo/o of the amo,,t demanded in the impugned distress warrant dated 24.O2.21).t5, within a period of one month from the date of Judgmenl Aggrieved- by the same, present CMSA is filed.

5. Heard Sri Kishore Rai, learned Senior Couns;el appearing on beha-lf of Ms.Divya Rai, learned counsel for thr: rppellarrt on \ 3 LNA, J CMSA.No.Z2 o12025 record arrd Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appea-ring for the appellant would submit that the appellate court having held ttrat the distress warrant dated, 24.02-2025 as illegal and arbitrar5r, ought not to have directed the appellant to pay 3O% of the amount demanded in the impugned distress warrant. He further submits that the appellate Court has not assigned a-ny reason while imposing \nreasonable condition on the appellant' He further submits that prior to issuance of distress warrant, the appellant has paid property tax @ Rs.25,3o4 l- p.a. up to 2ol7-2O18 arld also for the year 2Olg-2O2O. Since the respondent Corporation did not a.ccept the amount, the appellant could not pay the same for the Veat 2ol8-2}lg,2O2O-2O2L to 2024-2025' He also submits that to show bonafides of the appellant, the appellant drawn cheques in the name of Commissioner, GHMC, towards property tax for the assessment years 2}la-2}lg,2O2O-2O21 to 2024-2025' and the original cheques were handed over to the Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. Learned Counsel would submit that the appellant would ensure tha't the cheques are honoured on presentation by the respondent Corporation' 4 LNA, J c(ll.4 N^ rr -.rnr<

7. Learned Senior Counsel would further s.rbmit that the impugrred order dated Oa.OZ.2O2S of the appellar: Court may be modihed by setting aside to the extent of impor;irrg condition on the appellant to deposit 3o%o of the demanderl amount in the distress warrant dated, 24.02.2025 -

8. [,earned Stalding Counsel for responcler.t Corporation fairly submitted that the respondent Corporatrorr would follow procedure as directed by the appellate Court ;,nd revise the property tax in respect of the subject properfy bY duly giving an opportunity of I'rearing to the appellant.

9. In the light of the above facts and crrcurnstarces arrd submissions made by the learned Senior C:r insel for the appellalt as well as learned Standing Counsel f:rr respondent Corporation, CMSA is disposed of by setting asid: he impugned order insofar as imposing condition on the appella-Lt to pay 3Oo/o of the demanded amount in the distress *.;rrrant dated 24 .O2.2O25. The rest of the order remains r-r,,altered. The respondent Corporation is directed to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under Sectio ns 22L to 223 of the Act to revise the tax and pass appropriate orders within a period of 5 LNA, J CMSA-No.22 of2025 three months from the date of receipt of a coPy of this order by duly affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// E TION OFFICER

1. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad- 2. One CC to SMT. DIVYA RAI SOHNI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. M.ARUN KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL FOR GHMC Advocate [OPUC] I

4. Two CD Copies TPK,/PSL ' lE .:l i4 )- : sEP 2[25 | ,z:.', ,(".,'' i";i'-r 1 // ''t{,- I':11!,y',,i-' " "t HIGH COURT DATED:3110712025 JUDGMENT CMSA.No.22 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CMSA ')d 1tr