A notification is required to be issued under Section 679-F of the GHMC Act or Section 389-B of the AP Municipalities Act before APIIC can exercise the powers of the Municipal Corporation.

Challa Kodanda Ram, J.

1. Since in all these writ petitions, the demand of property tax by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation is being challenged as arbitrary, illegal and unauthorised, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience a reference is being made to the facts as set out in the affidavit filed in W.P. No. 11989 of 2013 to dispose of all these writ petitions. The petitioner is a proprietary concern running M/s. Sathyanarayana Saw Mill situated in Plot No. 37, Wood Complex, Nellore, challenges the special notice of property tax No. PT/WC/Nellore under Assessment No. 2037/APIIC, dated 05.02.2013 issued by the Zonal Manager & Commissioner, Industrial Area, Local Authority, The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., (for short "APIIC "), Industrial Estate, Nellore, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and seeks to set aside the same.

2. As per the averments in the writ affidavit, the premises of the industry is assessed to property tax under the Municipalities Act from the date of purchase of the industrial land from the 1st respondent-Corporation and has been paying property tax regularly. The tax that was being paid by the petitioner was Rs. 1,908/- till 31.03.2011, but by the impugned notice petitioner received a demand notice for Rs. 8,347/- with effect from 01.04.2011. There is no rational in increasing the property tax so steeply and petitioner has been advised the property tax that is sought to be collected by the 2nd respondent is ultra vires the powers conferred on them. The petitioner further submits that by virtue of the powers vested in Section 389-B of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (in short "Act-1965") had been issued G.O.Ms. No. 519, M.A., dated 21.09.1994, delegating the powers vested in the notified municipalities to exercise such powers and functions satisfied (sic. specified) in the notification. In the said Notification Sections 85 to 95 provisions relating to property tax were also mentioned. Since 1994 petitioner has been paying property tax to the 1st respondent-Corporation at Nellore. While the things stood thus petitioner received the impugned demand notice. On enquiry petitioner came to understand that the respondents 1 and 2 have revised the property tax steeply by applying the rates as applicable to the Corporation and on further enquiry petitioner was informed that with effect from 08.10.2004 Nellore Municipality has been made as a Corporation and thereby they are entitled to collect property tax as applicable to the Corporation. Petitioner had further stated that though Section 679(F) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (in short "GHMC Act"), authorised the Government to transfer the powers of the Municipal Corporation to the APIIC, as a matter of fact there was no notification issued by the Government under Section 679(F) of GHMC Act, notifying the APIIC to enable them to exercise the powers as vested in the Corporation and as such the demand and collection of taxes by the APIIC in the purported exercise of the powers delegated to them is arbitrary and totally unauthroised. For these reasons, petitioner prays to quash the impugned notice. Petitioner further relies on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 360162 of 2010, dated 09.08.2011 whereunder similar contentions were raised in relation to Kadapa Municipal Corporation and this Court had allowed the writ petition setting aside the demand.

3. Rule nisi was issued in this Writ Petition and counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, sworn by General Manager (Law), APIIC, Hyderabad. In the counter affidavit it has been admitted that "No new notification has been issued by the Government under Section 679-Fof the GHMC Act. However, the earlier notification issued under Section 389-B of the Act-1965 would continue to be in force in the new