Telangana High Court
Dugyala Praveen Babu vs The State Of Telangana on 19 April, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.7750 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.3 in demanding the petitioner/tenant to pay property tax of Rs.49,43,646/- in respect of premises bearing No.13-1-129, Prabhath Nagar, Kothapet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, vide demand notice dated 12.03.2024, as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 276(3) of the GHMC Act, 1955 and also vioaltive of Articles 14, 19(1)(g, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri M. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner in brief, is that by an oral agreement entered into in the year 2012 2 with the landlord, the petitioner had taken on rent the shops bearing No.19 and 20 in Sunda Devi complex situated in the premises of 13-1-129 of Prabhath Nagar Kothapet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District and is running the business of Hair and Beauty salon therein.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent had served on undated demand notice under Section 276 of the GHMC Act demanding a sum of Rs.49,43,648/- from the petitioner towards property tax of the entire premises bearing door No.13-1-29, while the petitioner only holds shop bearing Nos.19 and 20 and the subject premises.
5. Petitioner further contends that as per the oral agreement entered with the landlord, the responsibility to pay property tax is that of the landlord only and, as such, no demand can be made on the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the amount of property tax claimed as due from the petitioner pertains to the period 2015 onwards and inspite of the petitioner being served with notice, no amount of property has been paid. 3
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that for the said reason the authorities once again have issued notice under Section 276 of the Act to the petitioner being an occupier of the subject property.
8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that inspite of numerous efforts being made by the respondent authorities for collecting property tax, the petitioner did not clear the outstanding dues of the property tax and has been avoiding payment of the property tax due in respect of the subject premises.
9. I have taken notice of the respective submissions made.
10. Though the petitioner claims to have taken the subject premises on lease, it has not been shown to this Court of the petitioner paying any rents to the landlord to establish the factum of tenancy. Further, the petitioner on being served with notices under Section 521 and 622 (4) of GHMC Act as well as Section 276 of the GHMC Act did not choose to submit any explanation claiming the alleged tenancy and the obligation to pay property tax being on the owner. Though in the affidavit filed in support of the Petition, the petitioner had claimed of having paid rents in respect of the subject property to the 4 Secretary of Ms. Radha Institute of Retarded persons, no material to the above effect has been placed before this Court for accepting the said contention.
11. Further, as per Section 276 and also Section 278-A of GHMC Act, the property tax demand which stands assessed on the commencement of the financial year can be recovered within a period of nine years. Since, the authorities are claiming the arrears of property tax along with interest for the period 2015 onwards, this Court is of the view that the action of respondent authorities in demanding the aforesaid payment cannot be found to be either illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Act.
12. Therefore, the Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 19.04.2024 MRKR