THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL WRIT PETITION No.14407 OF 2021

ORDER

: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

“For the reasons accompanying in the affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that a) there cannot be any assessment levy, demand and collection of the property tax from the petitioner without complying with provisions contained in Sections 81, 83, 85 & 87 of the Telangana State Municipality Act.

b) the Assessment, levy, demand and collection from the petitioners without complying with Rule 15 of Taxation & Finance Rules is void.

c) declare that the demand notices dt: 6.8.2020 demanding payment of property tax from the petitioners for door bearing Nos.2-181, 2-182, 2-183 and 2-184 are illegal and liable to be set aside.

d) declare that petitioners are entitled for refund of amount paid by them to the 3^rd respondent in pursuance of demand notices dot: 6.8.2020.

e) and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that petitioner No.1 is a society registered under the A.P (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. Petitioner No.1 society has purchased an extent of 50 acres of land at Mangalpally Village and Gram Panchayat, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 after obtaining permission from the authority concerned has constructed the building wherein petitioner No.2 institution, namely Bharat Institute of Technology and Science for Women (Library Building), is being run. In the aforesaid institution, education in several engineering courses is imparted.

4. Notices dated 06.08.2020 were issued by Adibatla Municipality, wherein the petitioners were asked to make payment of the property tax as well as library cess. The petitioners thereupon have filed this writ petition in which the validity of the aforesaid demand notices is under challenge.

5. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners confined his challenge in the writ petition only to validity of the demand notices issued by the Municipality. While inviting the attention of this Court to Section 81 of the Telangana State Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the 1965 Act’), learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Municipality has the authority to levy the property tax enumerated therein. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the impugned demand notices are contrary to Sections 81, 83, 85 and 87 of the 1965 Act, inasmuch they do not specify the rate at which and the date from which any such tax shall be levied, by a resolution, and so also there is no publication of notification of new taxes as contemplated under Section 83 of the 1965 Act specifying the rate at which, the date from which and the period of levy, if any, for which, such tax shall be levied. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that no resolution has been passed as contemplated under Section 85(1) of the 1965 Act and the method of assessment of property tax has also not been followed as contemplated under Section 87 of the 1965 Act. It is therefore contended that the demand notices are liable to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that under the 1965 Act, it is permissible for the Municipality to issue the demand notices.

7. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

8. The 1965 Act is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to municipal