The High Court · 2025

Petrtion Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent corporation to forthwith remove the seal/unseal our premises bearing H.No 4-4-4, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad, and permit the Petitioners to carry on business activity therein pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of .justice. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI PURUSHOTAMLAAL Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRt SRINIVAS RAO PACHWA, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the fotlowing ORDER 1 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITTO N No.27694 OF 2025 ORDER: (ORAL) Thiswritpetitionisfiledbythepetitionerschallengingtheseizure noticeNo.PT/TLIHYT3/GHMC/2025-2o26dated12.08.2025issued under Section s 521(2) arrd 622 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'Act') where under their business premises bearing Municipal No.4-4-4, situated at Hayathnagar' Hyderabad, was seized without following due process of law'

2. Heard Mr. Purushothamlaal, leamed counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Srinivas Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC' appearing for respondents No.2 and 3; and perused the material on record.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they obtained the subject premises bearing Municipal No.4-4-4, situated at Hayathnagar' HyderabadonleasefromoneMr.PadalaRameshS/oNarsaiahin|994 with monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only); the rent was enhanced from time to time. The business was jointly run by the petitioners and their father under the name and style of 'M/s Kedia coco Industries' and later it was shifted to the subj ect premises in 1997 ' 2 Therealter, the land owners by name Mr. P.Ramesh and Mr. p.Ashok executed an agreement of sale dated 27.01.1999 in favour of the petitioners. As the land owners defaulted in performing the said agreement, the petitioners filed suit in O.S. No.16 of 2003 for specific performance of agreement of sale on the file of the leamed III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar and the same was decreed by judgment and decree dated 22.03.2012. It is submitted that challenging the decree dated22.03.2012, the land o\rners filed appeal in A.S. No.73 1 of 2012 before this Court and stay of the said decree was granted.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that currently petitioner No. I is running the business under the name and style of 'M/s Kedia Steel and Tubes under trade licence bearing No.0796-032- 004 dated 06.11.2020. As there was dispute with regard to the properry tax assessment, the petitioners filed Municipal appeal vide M.A. No.12l of 2008 before the learned City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad challenging the demand notice dated L5.03.2007 issued to them claiming sum ofRs.85,840/- (Rupees eighty five thousand eight hundred and forty o1!y) which includes arrears oftax, p-enalty and interest. The said appeal 3 was allowed by judgment dated 01.05.2009 setting aside the demand notice dated 15.03.2007. It is further submitted that subsequently, there was an arbitrary revision of the property tax through special notice under Sections 220(2)(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2015 wherein the properry tax of the subject premises was enhanced from Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per annum to Rs.2,ll,044l- (Rupees two lakhs eleven thousand and forry four only). The said notice was challenged by the petitioners in M.A. No.39 of 2OL6 and the same was allowed by judgment dated 22.08.2017 directing the respondent authorities to reassess the property tax in respect of the subject premises strictly in accordance with the Sections 220 to 223 of the Act The petitioners submitted several representations requesting the respondent authorities to reassess the property tax strictly in accordance with the aforesaid judgments, however, the same was not done. All of a sudden, seizure notice dated 12.08.2025 was issued alleging that the petitioners failed pay the arrears of property tax of Rs.2,32,461l- (Rupees two lakhs thirty two thousand four hundred and sixty one only).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent authorities are, arbitrarily, demanding payment of property tax arrears .G- ".Es{_*! 4 under the guise that the petitioners did not obtain valid trade licence ln fact, petitioner No.l is conducting business under valid provisional trade licence dated 06. 1 1 .2020 issued by rhe GHMC under Sections 521 and 622 of the Act bearing TIN No.0796-032-0004 in respect of the premises bearing H.Nos.4-4-3, 4-4-4 and 4-4-4/2. The impugned seizure notice is arbitrary and contrary to the judgment dated 01.05.2009 in M.A. No.121 of 2008 and judgment dated22.08.2017 in M.A. No.39 of 2016 passed by the leamed City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad The petitioners submitted reply dated 13.08.2025 to the seizure notice dated 12.08.2025. Despite the same, the respondent authorities seized the subject premises on 14.08.2025. As such, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, basing on the written instructions, submitted that Mr. P.Ramesh is the owner of the premises bearing Municipal No.4-4-4, situated at Hayathnagar, Hyderabad, with PTIN No.1030402231 and Mr. P.Gopala Krishna is the owner of the premises bearing Municipal No.4-4-412, situated at Hayathnagar, Hyderabad, with PTIN No. 1030406259 and both the properties are assessed for property tax. It is submitted that the respondent corporation 5 has issued notice under Section 633 of the Act dated 07 '07 '2025 to Mr. P.Ramesh demanding to pay an amount of Rs'2,31,180/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty one thousand one hundred eighty only) in respect of H.No.4-4-4, admeasuring 57 -27 sqtare yards in Survdy No' 12 with PTIN No.1030402231, situated at Hayathnagar, at the rate of Rs'1,560/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred and sixty only) per year which is pending from 2004 to till the date of revision (including penalty @ 2Y" per month in default). Further, the respondent corporation has issued similar notice under Section 633 0f the Act dated 07.07.2025 to Mr. P.Gopata Krishna demanding to pay an amount of Rs'3,31'651/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty one thousand six fifty one only) in respect of H.No.4-4-412, admeasuring 57-27 sqtare yards in Survey No'12 with PTIN No.1030406259, situated at Hayathnagar, at the rate of Rs'17,8761 (Rupees seventeen thousand eight hundred and seventy six only) per year which is pending fiom 2016 to till the date of revision (including penalty @2Yoper month in default;.

7. Leamed Standing Counsel submitted that the respondent corporation has not received any reply or any payment from either Mr. P.Ramesh or Mr. P.Gopala Krishna' Thus, the respondent r ,l . .-\I .:i . ' .:.' 6 corporation issued seizure notice under Section 213 to 220 of the Act dated 12.08.2025 to Mr. p.Ramesh (for non-payment of Rs.2,32,461l-) and to Mr. P. Gopala Krishna (for non-payment of Rs.3,35,i55l_).

8. Leamed Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioners herein do not have any valid trade licence in their names or in the name of the business concem i.e. .Kamadenu Steel Tubes and pipes'. on verification by the respondent corporation, it was observed that the trade licence vzde TrN No.0796-032-0004 is pertaining to property rax vzde PTIN No.1030402865 in respect of the premises bearing No.4_4_33, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, the trade licence submitted by the petitioners is false and fake. The impugned seizure notice under Sections 521(2) and 622 of the Acr dated 12.09.2025 was issued to the petitioners in accordance with law. 9 However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a typographical error and the premises number is wrongly shown as No.4-4-33 instead of No.4-4-3.

10. ln view of the above submissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit objections/representation to the seizure 7 notice dated 12.08.2025 and deposit 50Yo of the total demand amount of Rs.9,83,710/- (Rupees nine lakhs eighty three thpusand seven hundred and ten only) within a period often (10) days fiom the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order. On receipt of such objections/representation along with the payment, respondent No.3 is directed to forthwith unseal the subject premises and handover the possession of the same to the petitioners. Respondent No.3 shall consider the objections/representation of the petitioners by giving them opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of such objections/representation. It is made clear that the 50o% amount so paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted to the assessment/ reassessment of the subject premises as the case may be. Respondent No.3 is entitled to recover the balance amount of the property tax arrears, if any, from the petitioners subject to the outcome of such enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in ., . - this writ petition, stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G. SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad- 5OO022.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, GHMC Complex, Lower Tank Bund, Liberty, Hyderabad- 500029.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Hayath Nagar Circle - lll, Hyderabad-

501505. 3 To :.ffi,,,,-. 4 Two CCs to GP FOR tvlCPL ADIVN AND URBAN DEVELOPTMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 5 One CC to SRI PURUSHOTAMLAAL, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS RAO PACHWA, SC FOR GHtvlC, Advocate (oPUC)

7. Two CD Copies SA BS W I , ! I l I I i I ! I I I I I I l HIGH COURT DATED:1510912025 C.C.'TODAY t ( '.) i i q- c8 \q" /l-l )d ORDER WP.No.27694 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 0