The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant suspension of the direction in the Judgment and Decree dated 08.07.2025 passed in M.A.No.27 of 2025 by the Hon'ble Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad whereby the Petitioner was directed to pay 30% of the amount demanded rn the Distress Warrant dated 24.02.2025 within one month from the date of Judgment. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI KISHORE RAl, Sr Counsel representing Ms DIVYA RAI SOHNI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M ARUN KUMAR, SC For GHMC The Court made the following: JUDGMENT r HON'BLI} SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA AI,ISHETTY Civil Uis;cellaneous Second Appeal No. 19 of 2O25 JUDGMENT The priscnt CMSA is filed aggrieved by the ,Iudgment and Decree dated 08.O7.2025, passed by the Chief Jurlge, City Sma1l Causes Court at Hyderabad, in MA.No.27 of 2O2.>, whereunder and wherebl' the learned Judge while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant herein directed the appellant her,:in to pay 307o of the arnount demalded in the impugned Distress Warrant dated 24.O2.2O25, within one month from the datr: of Judgment.

2. The appeliant 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 filing of the present CMSA is that the appellant fiied MA.No.27 of 2025 under Section 282 of the GHMC Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1955J against the Distress Warrant dated

24.02.2025, vide PTIN No. 1051513098 in respect of the propert5r bearing door No.15-l-678, 67811 &, 2/A, situated at Gosha Mahal road, Hyderabad. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondent Corporation has issued Distress Warrant dated LNA, J CMSA.No.I9 of 2025

24.O2.2O25 by revising the property tax of the subject property, exorbitantly, from Rs.9,O4Ol- p.a. to Rs.6,BO,074l-, without following the procedure prescribed under the Act which maldates issuance of notice belore revising the tax. Further, the respondent Corporation failed to consider the representations dated 20.O3.2O18, 26.O2.2019, 03.O2.2021, 1O.O2.2022,

06.03.2023, 1O.O3.2O24 and 20.02.2025 submitted by the appellant challenging the enhancement of property tax.

4. The appeilate Court allowed MA.No.27 of 2025 vide impugned order dated O8.O7 .2025 setting aside the distress warrant dated 24.02.2025 ald remanded the matter to respondent Corporation to assess the tax of the schedule property afresh, in accordance with the procedure laid down under GHMC Act, by duly affording opportunity to the appellant, subject to the appeiiant paying 3Oo/o of the amount demanded in the impugned distress warrant dated 24.02.2025, within a period of one month from the date of Judgment. Aggrieved by the same, present CMSA is filed.

5. Heard Sri Kishore Rai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.Dirya Rai, learned counsel for the appellant on l LNA, J CMSA.No.l9 of 2025 record and Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellate Court having held that the distress warrant dated 24.02.2025 as illegal and arbitrary, ought not to have directed the appellant to pay 3Oo/o of the amount demanded in the impugned distress warrant. He further submits that the appellate Court has not assigned any reason r,r,hile imposing unreasonable condition on the appellant. He further submits that prior to issuance of distress warrant, the appellant has paid property tax @ Rs.9,040/- p.a. up to 2Ol7-2018 zrnd also for the year 2OI9-202O. Since the respondent Corporation did not accept the amount, the appellant could not pay the same for the year 2O|B-2O19,2O2O-2O21 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 yea-rs 2078-2019,2020-2021 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 that the cheques are honoured on presentation by the respondent Corporation. .-/ I LNA, J CMS,,|.No.19 of 2025

7. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the impugned order dated 08.O7.2025 of the appellate Court may be modified by setting aside to the extent ol imposing condition on the appeilant to deposit 30% of the demanded amount in the distress warrant dated 24 .O2.2025 . B. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation fairly submitted that the respondent Corporation would follor.r, procedure as directed by the appellate Court and revise the property tax in respect of the subject property by duly giving an opportunity of hearing to the appeilant. 9 . In the light of the above facts and circumstances and submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation, CMSA is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order insofar as imposing condition on the appellant to pay 30% of the demanded amount in the distress warrant dated

24.02.2025. The rest of the order remains unaltered. The respondent Corporation is directed to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under Sections 221 to 223 of the Act to revise the tax and pass appropriate orders within a period of 5 LNA, J CMSA.No.19 of2025 three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by duly affording opportunity of hearing to the appellzlnt' Pending miscellaneous applications, if an5', shall stand clo sed. \ SD/. N.SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR \\\ TION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 . The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri Divya Rai Sohni, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri M Arun Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies r,L AI}K/GR HIGH COURT DATED: 3110712Ct25 ORDER CMSA.No.'|9 of ',2025 DISPOSING OF TI+E CMSA f*- lo 9-\ \ @ o .h 1 .14 S l':i r(. ? 7 0tI 2$25 A-spa rt: ltilo ,, l I -.: