Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.ROHINI, MOTILAL B.NAIK
V.K.Roy - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 06-07-02
Writ Petitions – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Revenue Recovery Act – Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act – Sections 269, 270 and 278 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 112 – Property tax – Not entitled – Petitioner was issued a demand notice by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the property tax – Petitioner was also issued a demand notice seeking to recover property tax for the years from 1979 to 1995 – Petitioners were concerned, a demand notice was issued seeking to recover arrears of property tax for the period commencing from 1-4-1982 to 30-9-1992 – Writ Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 9735 and 20724 of 1995 have challenged the demand notices before the chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad by way of filing appeals and the chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad held that the respondent- corporation was not entitled to recover property tax for more than three years preceding the date of demand notice and also held that it cant recover the tax for such period by filing a civil suit against the writ petitioners – Petitioners seeking a declaration that the demand notices issued by the respondents calling upon the petitioners to pay the property tax dues for several years is beyond the jurisdiction and against the law declared by this Court in The municipal Corporation of Hyderabad through the Special Officer, Hyderabad and prayed this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with law and forbear from resorting to any coercive action, for recovery of arrears of tax through the respective impugned notices – Held, petitioners, however, carried the matter before the Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court, Hyderabad by filing appeals seeking to declare the demand to be valid only for a period preceding three years to the demand notice – Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, accepted the contentions of these petitioners and declared that the Municipal corporation is not entitled to collect property tax for more than three years preceding the date of demand notice by way of summary procedure i. e., by issuing distress warrant – This court is agree with the findings of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad to the extent indicated above – This court set aside the impugned demand notices pertaining to the period not covered under decision rendered by the Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad – In so far as W. P. No. 19681 of 1995 is concerned, tax was sought to be recovered for the years 1979 to 1995 – Since tis court have declared that the respondents are not entitled to recover tax for more than three years preceding the demand notice, this court also set aside the impugned notice in this Writ petition to the extent indicated – However, if the respondents choose to recover such tax beyond three years period, they can do so by taking recourse to the provisions under Section 278 of the Act, however, according to law – Writ Petitions are allowed.
( 1 ) SINCE the issue involved in all these three writ petitions is one and the same, they are being decided by this common order.
( 2 ) PETITIONERS in all these three writ petitions are owners of immovable properties in Hyderabad and Secunderabad and are liable to pay property tax as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal corporations Act (for short "the Act" ).
( 3 ) PETITIONER in W. P. No. 9735 of 1995 was issued a demand notice by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the property tax for the period commencing from 1-4-1981 to 31-3-1993. Petitioner in W. P. No. 19681 of 1995 was also issued a demand notice seeking to recover property tax for the years from 1979 to 1995; and in so far as the petitioners in W. P. No. 20724 of 1995 are concerned, a demand notice was issued seeking to recover arrears of property tax for the period commencing from 1-4-1982 to 30-9-1992. Writ Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 9735 and 20724 of 1995 have challenged the demand notices before the chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad by way of filing appeals and the chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad held that the respondent- corporation is not entitled to recover property tax for more than three years preceding the date of demand notice and also held that it cart recover the tax for such period by filing a civil suit against the writ petitioners. However, despite the judgment of the Civil Court, the respondents have issued notices seeking to recover property tax for the period indicated above, from the respondents.
( 4 ) AT that stage, petitioners have approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the demand notices issued by the respondents calling upon the petitioners to pay the property tax dues for several years is beyond the jurisdiction and against the law declared by this Court in The municipal Corporation of Hyderabad through the Special Officer, Hyderabad v. Champalal and prayed this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with law and forbear from resorting to any coercive action, for recovery of arrears of tax through the respective impugned notices.
( 5 ) ON behalf of the writ petitioners, common submissions were advanced by the respective counsel mainly contending that as provided under Section 278 of the hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, institution of a suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction, in case of default in payment of property tax, is contemplated and that the respondents without resorting to such a procedure, issued a demand notice seeking recovery of arrears of tax for several years, which is a summary remedy, and that they are proposing to take coercive steps including that of initiation of proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act, which is impermissible. It is submitted that the respondents have no authority to initiate distraint proceedings against these petitioners invoking the jurisdiction under sections 269 and 270 of the Act in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this court cited (1) supra. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents are bound by the ratio laid down by this Court in the said decision and they are precluded from taking coercive steps against these petitioners. Learned Counsel for the respective parties, therefore, seek to set aside the impugned notices.
( 6 ) ON behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad - respondent in these writ petitions, Sri Ramesh ranganathan, learned Additional Advocate general though not disputed the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision cited (1) supra, but however, contended that on account of subsequent amendment brought to Section 238 of the hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act under Amendment Act No. 3 of 1994 which has come into force with effect from 1-3-1994, the limitation period of three years providing for recovery of property tax has been done away and the Municipal corpo
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
