##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9181 of 2026

DATE OF ORDER: 26.03.2026 Between:

Venu Damodar Reddy

...Petitioner AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,

Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & 2 others ...Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent

No.3 in demanding property tax without issuing a demand notice, revising tax without following the procedure prescribed under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “GHMC Act”) and TG-bPASS Act, 2020, and attempting to seal the property of the petitioner without following the due procedure as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of

India.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated are that the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land admeasuring 2800 square yards in Sy.No.42, situated at Peerzadiguda, Ranga Reddy District, which was

2

originally under the jurisdiction of Peerzadiguda Gram Panchayat and the said land was acquired by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing document No.9302 of 1980 dated 25.08.1980. It is further submitted that subsequently, the subject property was assessed with H.No.1-55 and assigned Property Tax Identification (PTIN) No.1198000283 and since then the petitioner is paying a regular tax and had never defaulted on property tax payments and to the extent of evidencing the payment of property tax for the year 2024-25 over the subject property, the petitioner had also filed tax receipt of Rs.6,070/- dated 15.04.2024. Aggrieved by the revised tax on the subject property, the

present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents without issuing any tax payment notice have high handedly obtained cheque bearing No.553765 dated 27.03.2026 for an amount of Rs.3,86,166/- and Cheque No.553766 dated 25.03.2026 for an amount of Rs.1,80,852/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said cheques were issued to prevent the immediate sealing of subject property and to avoid irreparable loss and injury and the said cheques were obtained under coercion, duress and

protest.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 on instructions would submit that property tax demand notice for the year 2025-26 was given to the petitioner. However, on verification it

3

was observed that the said notice was addressed to the petitioner and the same was received by the petitioner’s son. Learned standing counsel further submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the property tax demand notice, he ought to have filed an appeal under

Section 282 of GHMC Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that since the tax has been already been paid for the year 2024-2025, he would avail

the remedy as available under Section 282 of the GHMC Act.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the

material made available on the record.

7. Having considered the above facts and circumstance, recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to

the petitioner to seek remedy as available under law.

8. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending

in this petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 26.03.2026

Vrks