Telangana High Court
Rajendra Kumar Kimtee, Died Per Lr, P 2 To ... vs Commissioner, Ghmc., Hyd And 2 Ot on 10 December, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.31765 of 2015
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao) Petitioner No.1 filed this writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in issuing demand notice for payment of property tax contrary to the Division Bench decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.Nos.31515 of 2010 and 22115 of 2013 dated 11.10.2013.
2. Heard Sri V. Srikanth Hari Haran, learned counsel representing Sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for the respondents.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that petitioner No.1 was the owner and possessor of the land bearing plot No.12, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, admeasuring approximately 1100 sq. yards and the same was purchased in the year 1968 and in the said property, he erected ::2::
a small tin shed without any RCC roof for the purpose of security personnel to safeguard the electric connection and meter. The subject land is an open and vacant land. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 illegally demanded and collected vacant land tax since 2009-
2010 to 2013-2014 and he paid an amount of Rs.12,24,761/- for the said period. Petitioner No.1 submitted representations on 02.04.2012 and 30.04.2012 requesting the respondent authorities to refund the vacant land tax paid by him, as the subject land is not liable for payment of tax as per the order passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.Nos.31515 of 2010 and 22115 of 2013 dated 11.10.2013. In spite of repeated requests made by petitioner No.1, the respondent authorities have not refunded the said amount, on the other hand issued demand notice for payment of the property tax for the assessment year 2015-2016. Hence, petitioner No.1 filed the present writ petition.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject land is open and vacant land and the respondent authorities ought not to have collected the vacant land tax of an ::3::
amount of Rs.12,24,761/- from 2009-2010 to 2013-2014. In spite of the representations submitted by petitioner No.1 dated 02.04.2012 and 13.07.2015, the respondent authorities have not taken any steps to consider the claim of the petitioners for refund of the above said amount, on the other hand issued demand notice and the same is contrary to law.
4.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in K. Rajiv v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary and two others 1.
5. Submissions of learned Standing Counsel for the respondents:
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the subject property is liable for payment of vacant land tax and the respondent authorities had rightly issued demand notice for payment of tax and the petitioners are not entitled the relief sought in the writ petition. He submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 will consider the representations submitted by petitioner 1 2014 (1) ALD 170 ::4::
No.1 in accordance with law and requested this Court to grant reasonable time.
Analysis:
6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the records. Admittedly, this Court in K. Rajiv (supra) while considering the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Assessment of Property) Tax Rules, 1990, specifically held that the scheme of taxation in the Act, levying of tax on the vacant lands other than the land appurtenant to the buildings as provided under Section 212(2) of the Act is ultra vires, unauthorized and illegal.
7. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioners specifically claimed that the subject property is open and vacant land and they have not made any construction except a small tin shed without any RCC roof. It reveals from the record that petitioner No.1 has submitted representations to respondent No.2 on 02.04.2012 and 13.07.2015 for refund of the tax, which was already paid by him for the years from 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 ::5::
to an amount of Rs.12,24,761/- by enclosing the copy of the decision of this Court in K. Rajiv (supra). However, the respondent authorities have not passed any order.
8. It is relevant to mention that whether in the subject property, the petitioners made construction or it is open and vacant land, is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be adjudicated at this juncture in the writ petition on the ground that the respondent authorities have not filed counter affidavit nor passed any order on the representations submitted by petitioner No.1.
9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view and to meet the ends of justice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representations submitted by petitioner No.1 dated 02.04.2012 and 13.07.2015 and pass speaking order, by duly taking into consideration the decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court in K. Rajiv (supra), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity to the petitioners including personal hearing.
::6::
10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date:10.12.2024 mar