##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 25 of 2025

24^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

Mrs. Fouzia Khatija, Hyderabad and others.

…appellants

AND

The Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad and another.

…respondents

JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. V.M.M.Chary, learned counsel for the appellants and

Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

Perused the record.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the

judgment and decree dated 15.07.2025 passed in M.A. No. 48 of 2025

by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad (for

short, ‘the First Appellate Court’).

3. The GHMC officials have assessed property tax for the property

belonging to the appellants i.e., H.No.13-6-826/5/1, Plot No.5, in

Survey No. 503/A, Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal,

2

RY,J

CMSA_25_2025

Hyderabad. Then GHMC issued notice dated 10.03.2025 for payment

of property tax of Rs.4,27,248/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants

preferred the M.A. No. 48 of 2025 before the First Appellate Court.

4. The First Appellate Court has allowed the M.A. by passing the

following judgment:

“14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The

impugned demand notice, dt. 10.03.2025 issued by the

respondent Corporation is hereby set aside. However, the

matter is remitted back to the respondent corporation with a

direction to re-assess the Property Tax by taking

measurements of the appeal schedule property and also

assess unauthorized construction under Section 220-A of the

Act, by providing reasonable opportunity of personal hearing

to the appellants and dispose of the objections of the

appellants and then pass assessment orders in accordance

with procedure, on condition that the appellants shall pay

70% of the amount demanded in the impugned demand

notice into the Account of GHMC, within two months from the

date of this judgment. On receipt of the said amount, the

aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondent-

Corporation within three months. There shall be no order as

to costs.”

(verbatim reproduced)

5. The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment with

respect to direction to pay 70% on the remaining amount i.e., after

deducting the said amount within two months from the date of the

judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that such a

direction would cause prejudice to their rights when the matter is

considered afresh by the Municipal Authorities for re-assessment of

Property Tax.

3

RY,J

CMSA_25_2025

7. Learned standing counsel for the respondents-GHMC conceded

that no such direction for depositing of the amount is made at the

time of disposal of the main appeal and that the order of such a nature

is passed at the time of moving the Municipal Appeal along with the

Interlocutory Application for grant of stay.

8. Having regard to the concerns raised by the appellants about

their rights being prejudiced during re-assessment, since the matters

have been remanded back to the Municipal Authorities for fresh re-

assessment, the direction to deposit 70% of amount of impugned order

is liable to be set aside.

9. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is Allowed. The impugned

judgment and decree dated 15.07.2025 passed in M.A. No. 48 of 2025

by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, is

set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Municipal Authorities

for fresh re-assessment. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

___________________

RENUKA YARA, J

Date:24.12.2025

gms/bj

4

RY,J

CMSA_25_2025

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 25 of 2025

24.12.2025

gms/bj