HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

WRIT PETITON No.11826 OF 2025

DATE OF ORDER: 15-12-2025

Between:

Mr. Gautam Mahmood S/o. Mahmood Ali and three (3) others.

... Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana

Rep. By its Principal Secretary,

Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad, and four (4) others.

... Respondents

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare

the action of respondent No.5 in levying property tax, arrears etc. in respect of the property bearing Door Nos.10-5-2/1/8/A/101, 10-5- 2/1/8/A/102, 10-5-2/1/8/A/106, 10-5-2/1/8/A/108, 10-5- 2/1/8/A/110, 10-5-2/1/8/A/111, 10-5-2/1/8/A/113, 10-5- 2/1/8/A/115, 10-5-2/1/8/A/116, 10-5-2/1/8/A/112, 10-5-

2/1/8/A/114, 10-5-2/1/8/A/117, total admeasuring 6891 square feet situated at 1^st floor, Maheshwari Complex, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, by treating as “commercial establishment”, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Heard Mr. Vijay B. Paropakari, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned standing counsel for the GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject matter of this writ petition pertains to the following door numbers and PTI Numbers:

Sl.No. Door No. PTIN No.

1 10-5-2/1/8/A/101 1071008900 2 10-5-2/1/8/A/102 1071008901 3 10-5-2/1/8/A/106 1071008902 4 10-5-2/1/8/A/108 1071008757 5 10-5-2/1/8/A/110 1071008822 6 10-5-2/1/8/A/111 1071008823 The petitioners are the joint owners and possessors of the subject property having inherited the same under registered will deed dated 19.12.2020 executed by late Mrs. Vimala Mahmood, mother of the petitioner No.1. The petitioners have been in continuous uninterrupted possession of the subject property. The subject property is not used for any commercial activity, business establishment, or any other activity in the nature of the commercial establishment. The subject property is exclusively used as legal offices, and a portion of the property is also used for residential purposes.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.5 has levied the property tax under the category of “commercial establishment” and has been levying property tax on such commercial rates and issued demand notice under Section 266(1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (for short ‘GHMC Act’) from time to time. Respondent No.5 has raised twelve (12) property tax demand notices for the assessment year 2025-26 under Section 266(1) of the GHMC Act. The total plinth area is 6,891 square feet and the property tax assessed is Rs.5,94,592/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety-four thousand five hundred and ninety-two only). The imposition of the property tax on the subject property by treating it as commercial establishment, even when the property is utilised for law offices is illegal and arbitrary.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of respondent authorities is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Sasidharan v. M/s. Peter and Karunakar, (1984) 4 SCC 230 and the Delhi High Court in South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. B.N. Magon, 2023 SCC OnLine DEL 8684. It is submitted that when the subject property is used partly for residential purposes and partly for legal offices, there is no commercial activity done by the petitioners. Thus, assessing the property tax as commercial establishment is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the GHMC Act.

6. Learned standing counsel for the GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, filed counter affidavit and submitted that the writ petition is filed by the petitioners by suppressing material facts and approached this Court with unclean hands. The petitioners have been using the building for commercial purposes and not paying the property tax regularly. The petitioners are liable to pay Rs.6,22,174/- (Rupees six lakhs twenty-two thousand on