The High Court · 2025

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 operation of the orders made in M.A.No.50 of 2025 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad to the extent of directing SWO the petitioners to pay 30% of the demanded tax and also to pay Rs.'10'39,1791 as per the directions in W.P.No.6293 ot 2O2O against property in H.No.13-6- 826/5 under PTI No.1071302688 over the Plot No.5, in Sy.No.503/A, Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Hyderabad pending the disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. V M M CHARY Counsel for the Respondents : MIDDE ARUN KUMAR (SC FOR GHMC) The Court delirrered the following: JUDGMENT I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI(A YARA CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 24 of 2025. 24T,. DAY OF DECEMBER. 2025 Between: Mrs. Fouzia Khatija, Hyderabad and others AND The Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad and another. ...appellants ... respondents JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. V.M.M.chary, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr' Midde Arun Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated I5.o7.2025 passed in M.A. No. 50 of 2025 by the learned chief Judge, city small causes court at Hyderabad (for short, the First Appellate Court,). I I \ \ 2 RY,J :MSA*24-2025

3. The GI{MC officials have assessed property tax for the property beionging to the appellants i.e., H.No. 13-6-826/5, Plot No.5, in Survey No. 503/A, A,tterpur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Hyderabad. Then GHMC issur:d notice dated 1O.O3.2O25 for payment of property tax of Rs.32,95 ,44O l-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred the M.A.No.50of2o2SbeforetheFirstAppellateCourt.

4. The First Appellate Court has allowed the M.A. by passing the following ju lgment: "14. In the result, the appeal is partlg allowed. .I.he impugned demantl. notice, d"t. 1O'03'2025 is'sued bg t.he respJndent Corporation is hereby set aside. Hotueuer, the matter i.s retmitted. back to the respondent corporation u-tith ct d"irectton io re-assess the Propertg Tax bg takinq measurements of the appeal schedule property in the presence of tie appeltants by prouiding reasonable 'opportt'.nitA -of personal Lteanng to the appellants and then p"-r, appiop"riate speaking orlers on condition that the 'appeltcnit iHoit poy o*ounf o/ Rs' 10,39,179/ as directed .ag' tne Hon'ble Higi Court uide W.P. No. 6293 of 2O2O utithin oie month from ilr. dot. of this judgment and 3.O-o/o on tLrc remaining amount (i.e., afier deducting the said amount) demandid in the impugned demand notice into the Account of GHITIC, wtthin tuto montlrc from the date of this judgment. On receipt of the said" amount, the aforesaid exercis.e shall be comple,tid- by the respondent-Corporation within three moith.;. There sLtall be no order as to costs' "

5. The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment with respect to direction to pay 30% on the remaining amount i.e', after (verbatim reproduced) (\ \/ / 3 RY.J CMSA_24_2025 deducting the said amount within two months from the date of the judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the appelrants submitted that such a direction would cause prejudice to their rights when the matter is considered afresh b-t, the Municipal Authorities ior re_assessment of Property Tax.

7. Learned standing counser for the respondents_GHMC conceded that no such direction for depositing of the amount is made at the time of disposal of the main appeal and that the order of such a nature is passed at the time of moving the Municipal Appear arong with the Interlocutory Application for grant of stay. B. Having regard to the concerns raised by the appe[ants about their rights being prejudiced during re-assessment, since the matters have been remanded back to the Municipal Authorities for fresh re_ assessment, the direction to deposit30% of amount of impugned order is liable to be set aside.

9. The civil Miscelaneous second Appeal is Aliowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated ts.or.2025 passed in M.A. No. 50 of 2o2s by the learned chief Judge, city smail causes court at Hyderabad, is 4 RY,J )MSA_24_2025 set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Municipal Authorities forfreshre-ulssessment.Thereshallbenoord.eraStocosts' MiscellaneousPetitions,ifanypending'shallstandclosed' SD/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chit;f Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (With records if any) 2. The Contmissioner, Greater Hyderabad, Municipal Corporation, Head Office, N/unicipal Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.13, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporal:ion, Head Office, Municipal Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

4. One CC to SRl. V M tvl CHARY Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. MIDDE ARUN KUMAR (SC FOR GHMC) Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Asr/Sa Wy HIGH COIJRT DATED:2t111212025 /- 4? iET ) () C) -t' * 7l Ii:ts lttlh * JUDGMEhIT CMSA.No.24 of 2025 ALLOWING THE APPEAL 1 ? ^il #