L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals is filed under Section 287 of the Hyderabad municipal Corporation Act (for short the act ) as extended to the Vijayawada municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ). While some of the appeals are filed by the Corporation, the others are filed by the assessees of property tax, who are either occupiers or owners of the premises within the limits of the corporation. Facts :

( 2 ) THE Corporation intended to revise the property tax for the premises within its jurisdiction, way back in the year 1993. A draft notification was issued by it on 17-2-1993. It became the subject-matter of proceedings before this Court and the hon ble Supreme Court. After the proceedings reached finality, with the order of the Supreme Court dated 23-4-2001, it resumed the steps. Another draft notification was issued on 16-4-2001. Representations were received from individuals and associations. The Corporation passed resolution dated 11-5-2001 and thereafter a final notification, contemplated under section 212 of the Act read with Hyderabad municipal Corporations (Assessment of property Tax) Rules, 1990 (in short the rules ), was issued on 22-9-2001.

( 3 ) THE General Body of the Municipal corporation considered the matter once again and passed resolution dated 3-10-2001 requiring the Commissioner to reduce the rates of tax notified under Notification dated 22-9-2001. A revised Notification was issued on 20-10-2001, making certain amendments to the final notification dated 22-9-2001. The Corporation issued individual notices dated 24-9-2001 intimating the assessees, the rates of the revised tax. Some of the assessees filed objections to the revised rates, and final orders were passed on consideration of the same. Aggrieved by such orders, fairly large number of assessees filed appeals in the Court of Senior Civil judge at Vijayawada under Section 282 of the Act.

( 4 ) SINCE the number of appeals was large, they were distributed among various courts of the similar jurisdiction. Some courts took the view that the Corporation did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Act, particularly, the one prescribed under Sections 218 to 220 of the act and thereby, the entire assessment is vitiated. Having set aside the demands made by the Corporation, the Courts gave liberty to the Corporation to take steps in accordance with the relevant provisions. Against such orders, the Corporation filed civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals.

( 5 ) CERTAIN other Courts, to which similar matters were allotted, took the view that non-compliance with the provisions such as Sections 218, 219 and 220 is a mere irregularity and that it can be cured under section 684 of the Act. On this basis, the orders of assessment as well as demand were upheld, permitting the Corporation to rectify the irregularity in exercise of its powers under Section 684 of the Act. Aggrieved by such orders, the assessees have preferred similar appeals. Contentions:

( 6 ) THE learned Additional Advocate general, Sri B. Prakash Reddy, appearing for the Corporation submits that the corporation had scrupulously followed the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules in the matter of division of the entire area into Zones, classifying the buildings depending on the type of construction and the use to which the buildings are put, and in fixing the annual rental value (ARV ). He submits that the purpose underlying the various sections and the rules is to require the Corporation to put the assessees on notice before the arv is fixed, or revised, and the same has been achieved to its full complement, with the publication of draft and final notifications as provided under Section 212 and the Rules, and by issuance of the individual notices to the assessees as contemplated under subsection (2) of Section 220 of the Act.

( 7 ) IT is his case that the only non- compliance, if at all, is as regards publication of n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document