( 1 ) HEARD both sides

( 2 ) SINCE the issue involved in all the appeals is common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) ALL these appeals are filed challenging the judgment, dated 26-9-2003, passed by the court of 1 Additional Senior Civil Judge, vijayawada in C. M. A. Nos. 295, 332, 335 and 350 of 2003.

( 4 ) THE brief facts of the cases are that the respondents in all the appeals are the owners of the buildings in Vijayawada city and they have been paying nominal rents. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (for short the Corporation ) proposed to enhance the property tax of their buildings. Accordingly, it issued special notices on different dates to the owners, as envisaged under Section 220 (2) of the Hyderabad municipal Corporations Act (for short the act ), which Act was adopted by the corporation. Aggrieved by the proposed amendment, the owners filed their objections, which were treated as revisions before the Commissioner. As per section 223 (1), (2) and (3) of the Act, the commissioner considering their objections, eventually passed orders on different dates on the revisions of the owners by slightly reducing the enhanced taxes. Not being satisfied with such reductions, the owners of the buildings filed Civil Miscellaneous appeals before the I Additional Senior Civil judge, Vijayawada.

( 5 ) IN the appeals, the court below held that the Corporation followed the procedure prescribed under Sections 214 to 225 of the Act and Rules 3 to 7 of the A. P. Municipalities (Assessment of Taxes) Rules, 1990, except the publication under section 218 (2) of the Act. It was further held that since the said irregularity can be cured under Section 684 of the Act, directed the corporation to give publication in A. P. Gazette and daily newspaper before issuing demand notice. The court further held that the Corporation is entitled to collect taxes only after complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 218 (2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said direction with regard to compliance of Section 218 (2) of the Act, the Corporation filed these appeals.

( 6 ) THE learned Advocate General appearing for the Corporation contended that though publication as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 218 was not given, the entire procedure cannot be said to be vitiated, inasmuch as the special notices as contemplated under Section 220 (2) of the act have been issued to the owners of the property. He further contended that the procedure prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 218 of the Act with regard to publication of notice, when valuation of the property in any ward has been completed, in a. P. Gazette and local newspaper and by posting placards in conspicuous places, is only procedural and not mandatory. He further contended that it would be sufficient to send special notices under Section 220 (2) to all the parties, where there is increase in rateable value of any premises and the same need not necessarily be informed by way of publication under Section 218 (2) of the Act. He further submitted that in all other cases, under Section 264 of the Act, the property tax has to be paid by the owners of the buildings on their own without any notice and where there is default, notices will be issued under Section 266 of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that since the respondents herein who are owners of the buildings in the Vijayawada city were served with special notices under Section 220 (2) of the Act, there is sufficient compliances of the provisions of the Act and there is no need to again resort to the procedure under section 218 (2) of the Act and sought for setting aside of the direction of the court below in this regard.

( 7 ) IN support of the above contentions, the learned Advocate General relied on a division Bench judgment of this court in himayatnagar Rate Payers Asso. v. Muni Corpn. Hyderabad and also the judgment of the Apex Court in Municipal board v. Saigal and Bhagwandas.

( 8 ) P