The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section '15.1 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.29 of 2025 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad whereby the Petitioner was directed to pay 30% of the amount demanded in the Distress warrant dated 24.02.2025 within one month from the date of Judgment. Counsel for the Appellant :SRl KISHORE RAI representing MS. DIVYA RAI SOHNI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M ARUN KUMAR The Court delivered the following: Judgment HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.21 of 2O25 JUDGMENT The present CMSA is filed aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree daterl [t8.07.2025, passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, in MA.No.29 of 2025, whereunder ald whereb.r the learned Judge while allowing the appeal filed by the appellarLt herein directed the appellart herein to pay 30% of the arnorrnl. demanded in the impugned Distress Warralt dated24.O2.2025, within one month from the date of Judgment.

2. The appe liant herein is the appellant ald respondents herein are resp,lndents in the MA

3. The factual matrix of the case in nut_she1l, which led to filing of the present CMSA is that the appellant iiled MA.No.29 of 2025 under Section 282 of the GHMC Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as 'tl-re Act, 1955) against the Distress Warrant dated 24.O22025, r,ide pTIN No.1051513936 in respect of the property bearing door No.tS-l-6T8, 6T3/l e 2/C, sitlaated at Gosha Maha1 road, .Hyderabad. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondent corporation has issued Distress warrant dated \,. ' 2 LNA, J \ CMSA.No.2l of 2025

24.O2.2O25 by revising the property tax of the subject property, exorbitantly, from Rs.9,05O/- p.a. to Rs.16,93,609/-, without following the procedure prescribed under the Act which mandates issuance of notice before revising the tax. Further, the respondent Corporation failed to consider the representations dated 20.O3.2ola, 26.O2.2019, 03.O2.2021, 1O.02.2022,

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

4. The appellate Court allowed MA.No.29 of 2025 vide impugned order dated Oa.O7 .2025 setting aside the distress warrant dated 24.O2.2025 and 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 appellant paying 30% 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.Dir,ya Rai, learned counsel for the appellant on --------1-- -) LNA, J CMSA.No.2I of2025 record and Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellalt 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 r,he appellant to pay 3Oo/o of the amount demanded in the impugned distress warrant. He further submits that the appellate Cou:-t has not assigned any reason u,hi1e imposing unreasonable condition on the appella.t. He ftrrther sllbmits that prior to issualce of distress warrant, the appellalt has paid property tax@ Rs.9,050/- p.a. up to 2Ol7_201g and also for the year 2O79-210i)0. Since the respondent Corporation did not accept the amc,unt, the appellant couid not pay the same for the year 2Ol8-2O71),2O20-2O2I to 2024-2025. He also submits that to show bonahrles of the appellant, the appellant drawn cheques in the name of Commissioner, GHMC, towards property tax for the assessmenl years 2Ola-2O19,2O2O-2O21 to 2024_2025, and, the original chr:ques were handed over to the Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation. Learned counsel wourd submit that the appellant would ensure that the cheques are honoured on presentation by the respondent Corporation. -rll \\ 4 LNA, J CMSA.No.2l of 2025

7. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the impugned order dated O8.O7.2025 of the appellate Court may be modified by setting aside to the extent of imposing condition on the appellant to deposit 3Ook of the demalded amount in the distress warrant dated 24.02.2025 B. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation fairly submitted that the respondent Corporation would follow procedure as directed by the appellate Court ald revise the property tax in respect of the subject property by duly giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellaflt.

9. In the light of the above facts and circumstances arrd 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 3O% 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 maldatory procedure contemplated under Sections 221 to 223 of tlle Act to revise the tax and pass appropriate orders within a period of .\...-.-2 5 LNA, J CMS/.No.2l of2025 three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by duly affording opportunity of hearing to the appeilant. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand c1o sed. S ,TRUE COPY// The Chief JLrclge, City Small Causes Court, H One CC to l\4S. DIVYA RAI SOHNI, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SiRl N/ ARUN KUIVAR, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4 ADK, I'S L \+ o R R R ISE d HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 JUDGMENT CMSA.No.21 of Z02S (1 (_'r \+ 13 t[r 7025 (. I |.|,./ -r/- DISPOSING OF THE CMSA G.d'> 'fze:P