✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 27 Mar 2012

Judgment · High Court · 2012

GODA RAGHURAM, N RAVI SHAKNAR2 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

The writ petitions are disposed of as above, but in the

Key paragraphs

  • Para 66. The writ petitions are disposed of as above, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _______________________ N. RAVI SHAKNAR, J 27th March 2012 CVRK

Judgment

These three writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the enhancement of property tax in respect of specified properties of the petitioners under Section 220(2) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short – ‘the 1955 Act’), read with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994.

2.

Pursuant to the special notice for property tax revision issued under Section 220(2) of the 1955 Act and the consequent demand notices issued, the petitioners have lodged their objections to the special notices issued, but these are proforma objections which do not specify details setting out specific objection/setting out the details on which the proposals for enhancement of property tax is contested.

3.

The learned counsel for petitioners, Sri V.Srinivas, in the circumstances, states that the petitioners be afforded liberty to file fresh objections to the special notices issued while directing the respondent Kurnool Municipal Corporation to consider those objections and pass orders disposing of those objections. The respondent municipal corporation may issue revised demand notices after disposing of the objections to be filed, is the contention.

4.

The learned Standing counsel for the respondent municipal corporation Sri B.Hanumantha Rao has no objection to this course of action.

5.

In the facts and circumstances and in the light of the contentions urged by the respective parties as above, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent municipal corporation to keep the demand notices impugned in these writ petitions in abeyance for the present. The petitioners may lodge fresh set of objections to the special notices issued in respect of each of their properties, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such objections being lodged and within the time specified, the respondent municipal corporation shall consider those objections and pass separate orders duly recording reasons dealing with the objections of the petitioners and shall communicate the decision to the petitioners by registered post with acknowledgement due, within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the objections. The respondent municipal corporation shall issue fresh demand notices in accordance with the decision taken on the objections of the petitioners.

Operative part

6.

The writ petitions are disposed of as above, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _______________________ N. RAVI SHAKNAR, J 27th March 2012 CVRK

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petitions are disposed of as above, but in the

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 — s. 220(2); Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 27 Mar 2012. The bench was GODA RAGHURAM, N RAVI SHAKNAR.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments