The 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 nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 to 5 in not taking any necessary action in furlherance of the Notice dl.31t17l2O25 sent for the Rectification of erroneous property tax classification and for the reassessment of tax as residential for the property bearing H.No.8 -2-3171M/12, Road No. ,10, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, against the provisions of GHtr,'lC Act and against all the settled principles of law, consequently direct the Respondents to take steps in furtherance of the Notice dl.31lO7l2O25 for the rectification of the erroneous property tax classification and for the reassessment of tax as residential for the property bearing H.No.8-2- 317 |M|12, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in I re circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High (;ourt may be pleased to direct the Respondents to take steps in furtherance of re Notice dt.3,l tol l2o2s filed before Respondent No.2 toy in the interest of jur;l ce, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition_ Counsel for ttre Petitioner: SRl. BOKARO LOKESHWAi REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.i: cp FOR MCPL AD|V I URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 The Court made the following: ORDER THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2640 3 0F 202s ORDER: (ORAL) Heard Mr. Bokaro Lokeshwar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, leamed standing counsel for the GHMC, appearing lor respondent Nos.2 to 5. 2 The petitioner claims that he was the owner and possessor of the property bearing H.No.8-2-3 l7lM/12 situated at Road No.10, Banjara Hitls, Hyderabad, having acquired the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.2674 of 2019 dated

22.04.2019. Later, the petitioner sold that subject property to IWs. Harish Chemicals represenred by Mr. Pothuri Butch Raju under registered sale deed bearing documenr No.7439 of 2024 dated 28 .1O.2024.

3. It is submitted that when the petitioner was the owner of the subject property lrom 22.04.2019 to 28.10.2024, it was vacant and neither there was any construction activity nor it was used for commercial purpose Howe'qer, the subject property was erroneously classihed as commercial property and the property tax 2 was levied wrongly by shb*ing that it is put to corr mercial use' But the property was never used for commercial 1)r rpose. The property was assessed with PTI No. i 100850i 87 and ' :re petitioner had been paying the property tax, and water t.,' vide CAN No.06 I 219997 regularly.

4. it is submitted that iiritiaiiy the petitiot , r submitted representation dated 29.11.2024 to responder t No.3 for rcctification of elroneous classitication of 1f 3 Propery. In response thereto, respondent No-3 sent ietter vicie Lr.No.763 l/TaxlCir-l 8/GHMC 12025 dated I 0.0 1.20 2 i stating that the concemed Tax Inspector and Bill Collector vis t:ci the above premises and the premises is having G+2 pillars (floo s) and at this j unciure the office cannot re-assess ihe property. Fuflher, the petitioner was directed to get the property mutated itL ris name and pay total property tax for taking further action in th: rnatter. It is contended that the petitioner was neither given ar y notlce nor opportunity of hearing when the GHMC authorities nspected the subject property. 3

5. It is stated that the petitioner submitted another representation dated 31.07.2025 to respondent Nos.2 to 4 seeking rectification of erroneous classification of the property and for changing it from commercial to residential in the Municipal Tax records and to reassess and revise the property tax liability and alTears

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not liable to pay arrears of property tax from

22.04.2019 to 28.10.2024, when the ownership of the property was with the petitioner, as classitication of the property was wrongly shown as commercial.

7. Leamed standing counsel for the GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, submitted that during the inspection of the subject property by the concemed GHMC officials, it was found that the property is vacant as of now and earlier it was used for commercial purpose, as such the property was assessed as commercial properly during the property tax assessment. Further, as per the information available in the website pertaining to the subject property, the yearly tax payable by the petitioner was 4 assessed at Rs.1,48,780/- (Rupees one lakh forty ,:' ght thousand seven hundred and eighty only) and the usage of th,) property was shown as 'comrnercial'. In total the petitioner is iable tc pay Rs.17,01,235l- (Rupees seventeen lakhs one thousani two hundred and thirty five only) towards arrears of the propert., tax from the years 2Ol9-20 to 2024-25.

8. [t is submitted by the leamed standing cc r nsel for the GHMC that there is no inforrnation as to u,hether the retitioner has paici property tax for the period fiom 2019 to 2024; l rrther, as the property of the petitioner was put to commercia I use, it was assessed as commercial property and the ailegation o - he petitioner that the property had been wrongly classified is incor-, ct

9. In the tight of the above submissions, withou. :ntering into the merits of the case, the writ petitiorr is disposed ot. directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to resJ ondent No.3 seeking rectification of alleged eroneous classifl: rtion of the subject property as 'iommercial' instead of 'resider,ial, and for re-assessiilent of tax of-the property within a perir i, or. two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thi: order. The \= 5 petitioner is also directed to deposit Rs.2,50,000/_ (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only), along with such representation. on receipt of such representation, respondent No.3 shal consider the same, and pass orders, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks thereof. The amount ol Rs.2,50,000/_ paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards arrears of the properry tax, and subject to the outcome of the enquiry. There shaU be no order as to SO costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition sand closed. D/-T.SREENIVAS REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY I L \ Tank Circle Circle tate of To, 1

2. 5 4 5 6 7 8 CHR SA W i i j HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 ORDER W.P.No.264Q3 of 2425 ,"-:--'- '-,. B 5 i,ii :, ...1r :. i-\ M:i) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t1y...-,