'1 . Fouzia Khatija v. 1. The Commissioner

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. 48 oI 2025 on the file of The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.to the extent of directing the petitioners to pay 70ok of the demanded tax against property in H.No..13-6- 8261511 against PTIN NO.11071302689 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: Sri. V M M Chary Counsel for the Respondents: Midde Arun Kumar (SC FO i GHMC) The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CwIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 25 of2025 24th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 Be tween: Mrs. Fouzia Khatrja, Hirderabad and others AND The Commissioner, GHMC, Hvderabad and atrother appellan ts responden ts JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. V.M.M.Chary, Iearned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, Iearned standing counsel for the respondents Perused the record.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is Iiled aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2O25 passed in M.A. No. 48 of 2025 by the learned Chief Judge, Citv Small Causes Court at Hvderabad (for short, 'the First Appellate Court').

3. The GHMC ofhcials have assessed property tax for the property belonging to rhe appellants i.e., H.No.13-6-826/511, Plot No.5, in Survey No. 5O3/A, Attapur Village, Rajenclranagar Mandal, 't 2 '\ RY,\ Hvderabad' Then GHMC issued notice dated 10 | t3.2o2s ror pavment of property ta-x of Rs.4.27 ,248/_. Aggrievecl bv the .;ame , tl_rc appellants preferred the M.A. No. 48 of 2025 before the Firsr ,ppellate Court, 4. The First Appellate Court l.ras allou.ed rh c lollou,ing juclgmen r: {.A. br passrng thc CMSA 25 2O2; ,.:-.,-i: .by " 14. In thc, resuLt, the appeal is partl.g al,tr.r impugned ciem.ctnd. notice, d"t. 1O.O3'.2O2| isst.t responden.t Crtrporation is herebg set astde. f*,, matter is remitted back to the reipondent corpor(., direclion to re assess the iropeftu T.ax : mee:;urenrents of tl-te appeat schedule properi. OS.sPss t/r.o ,,/ oized constru(lton unLlC,..., c,ior: - Ac| proL.,tcling reasonoble oppoftunitlj of per.;,.tt to the appellants and dispose of tie 'ibiect;t appellants ond then pcss assessment orcjers irt,i u-tith proct:dur<:, on condition that the upysellatts 70% of tlLe emount demanded" in the impu.qne: t notice into the ,Account of GHMC, uithin ttt,o mon:l , date of thls jtL.dgment. On receipt of the sa|cl ot, a"foresaid exercise shalL be completed bg the .L: Corporation within three montts.- There sialL be n t to costs. " , t:cL. '|'ht' 'i bq th.c ,eue'r, the tn rt'iih a t I tt ktrtc1 -. nri o 1so ) 4 r.'J' tltt: iht'orirul ; o.l lhe :'ord ancc halt patl d.entontl tro n r the turtt , the )ondent- ordc.r as

5. The appeliants have challenged (r.i batrm reproduced) the impuen .d ludgment u,ith respect to direction to pay Z Oo/o on the remaininr lmount i.e,, after deducting the sard amount within two months frr I I the clate of the judgment.

6. Learued cou,1se1 for the appellants subrljl ed that such a direction u/ould cause prejudice to their rights \r I :n the matter is cor-rsidered afresh by the Municipal Authorities lirr re-arsscssment of Property Tax. ... ir _ 3 RY,J CMSA 25 2025 Learned standing counsei tor the respondents-GHMc conceded .,," 7. 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 ol mo.,,ing the Municipal Appeal aiong with the lnterlocutory Application for grant of sta\i. B. Having regard to the concerns raised bv the appellants about their rights being prejudiced during re assessmcnt, since the matters have been remanded back to the Municipal Authorities for fresh re- assessment, the direction to deposit 7 Oak of amount of impugned order is liable to be set aside

9. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is Allou'ed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.07.2O25 passed in M.A. No. 48 of 2025 by the learned Chief Judge, Citv Small Causes Court at Hvderabad, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Municipal Authorities for fresh re-assessment. There shail be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To

1. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.(With Records if any)

2. One CC to Sri. V M M Chary, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Midde Arun Kumar, Standing Counsel for GHIVIC IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies w r/kam P HIGH COURT DATED:2411212025 ( e-) :. ?G, '( c, / o 0 ! ttB 2[2[ o t. ''" ! i-S;'.,:-Cii i'' -l^ JUDGMENT CMSA.No.25 ot 2025 J. ALLOWING THE CMSA

6.otRd Ut 1i'llu