ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for MA&UD appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.M.Arun Kumar, learned standing counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:-

“to declare the action of the 3rd respondent by demanding the property tax to an amount of Rs.9,54,520/- from the petitioner by issuing the impugned Notice of Demand No. TC14/GHMC/2025-2026 dated 07.02.2026, forcefully the 4th respondent taken the cheque bearing No.275221, dt 30.03.2026 drawn on Central Bank of India, Begumbazar Branch, Hyderabad, from the petitioner on the guise of seizing of the house property of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India by setting aside the impugned Notice of Demand dated 07.02.2026 and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and his property.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that in the year 2024, the petitioner had inherited the house property bearing H.No.14-7-205 to 209, Chudi Bazar, Begumbazar, Hyderabad. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 issued impugned demand notice bearing No.TC14/GHMC/2025-2026 dated 07.02.2026, for payment of demand of Rs.9,54,520/- towards arrears up to March-2025, arrears interest and current year tax demand of the subject property. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay property tax, however, the impugned demand notice dated 07.02.2026 is inclusive of demand for a period above nine years and as per Section 278-A of the GHMC Act, 1955, no demand can be made for a period beyond nine years, as such, the impugned notice dated 07.02.2026 is barred by limitation as prescribed under the GHMC Act, 1955.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstance this Court in W.P.No.5838 of 2024 dated 05.03.2024, passed the following order:-

“11. Having regard to the submissions made as above, since the impugned notice of demand dated 12.12.2023 as issued by the 3rd respondent authority includes the arrears of tax for the period 2010-2011 onwards which in the light of the judgment of this Court in C.M.S.A. Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 of 2021 dated 25.11.2022 (supra) and C.M.S.A. No.17 of 2019. This Court in the common order dated 25.11.2022 in C.M.S.A. Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 of 2021 had held as under:

“From a close reading of the above provision, it is clear that the limitation was contemplated for the purpose of execution. Three (3) years time is given for issuing distraint order for recovery of tax due and limitation commences from the date on which he distraint order could have been issued; for prosecution six (6) years is limitation and limitation commences from the date on which a right to initiate prosecution is accrued; and for filing the suit for recovery of tax demand amount nine (9) yeas is limitation and limitation commences from the date on which suit could have been first instituted.”

12. This Curt by the above decision having held that the demand of property tax beyond the period of nine years as barred by limitation, the authorities cannot raise/seek to enforce the said demand for the period 2010-11 onwards. Thus, the notice of demand as issued which the petitioner claim is for the period commencing from 2010-11 onwards in the considered view of this Court is clearly hit by the limitation provided under Section 278-A of the Act and cannot be sustained. Thus, this Court is of the view that the authorities are required to issue notice of demand for the period of nine years preceding from 2022-2023 by computing the arrears of interest thereon to enable the petitioner to make payment of the same.

13. Accordingly, the impugned notice of demand