Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
S. Shakuntala And Anr. vs Addl. Commissioner, Municipal ... on 28 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)ALT723, 1996 A I H C 3539, (1996) 3 LANDLR 227, (1996) 1 LS 275, (1996) 2 ANDHLD 283, (1996) 2 ANDH LT 723, (1996) 1 APLJ 460
Author: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
Bench: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, Y.V. Narayana
ORDER Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.
1. The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notice No. PA/162/C5/Tax95, dated 28-9-1995 and the Demand Notice dated 10-2-1996 requiring them to pay the municipal tax without reference to the actual rent received by them as illegal and arbitrary.
2. To appreciate the scope of the complaint of the petitioners, it would be necessary to state relevant facts here. The petitioners, it is stated, are the life estate holders of premises bearing Nos. 1-7-198 to 200 situate at M.G.Road, Secunderabad and they have the right to enjoy the rents derived from the said premises. They say that the property was leased out to a tenant on a rent of Rs. 800/- per month in 1952 and the same tenant is in continuous possession of the said premises. The municipal tax payable on that basic was Rs. 3,325-25 yearly. The present proceedings arises out of the special notice issued by the first respondent, viz., Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Under Section 220 (2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The notice, it is stated, was issued in the name of a dead person one Sri T. Anjaiah. However, the petitioners who are interested in the said property filed objections before the 1st respondent. They have not heard anything in respect of the objections filed by them and to their surprise, they received demand notice dated 10-2-1996 purported to have been issued Under Section 268 of the Act calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs. 1,17,368-25 Ps. as property tax upto the year ending on 31-3-1996 within 15 days from the date of service of that notice. This demand, inter alia, contains a recital that in default of payment of tax, warrant of distress will be issued for recovery of the said amount. The validity of this notice is assailed in this Writ Petition.
3. Sri V. Eswaraiah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, invited our attention to the provisions of Sections 220 to 223 of the Act and has submitted that neither a date for investigation of the complaint was fixed nor any notice for hearing of the objections was given, therefore, the impugned order of demand is in violation of not only the principles of natural justice but also the provisions of Sections 220 to 223 of the Act, as such it is liable to be quashed.
4. Sri K.N. Jwala, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submits that it was only after considering the complaint of the petitioners, necessary orders were passed on the complaint, which resulted in issuing of the demand in terms of Section 223 of the Act, therefore, the impugned demand cannot be said to be illegal or without basis. He, however, contends that there is no requirement of communication of the order passed on the complaint made by the petitioners, so the petitioners cannot make an issue for not serving a copy of the order on them.
5. The short question that arises for our consideration in this writ petition is, whether the impugned demand is sustainable in law.
6. It will be useful to refer to the provisions of Sections 220 to 223 of the Act, which are relied upon by the petitioners. They read as follows:
"220. Time for filing complaints against valuations to be publicly announced:-
(1) The Commissioner shall, at the time and in the manner provided in Section 218, give public notice of a day not being less than twenty-one days from the publication of such notice, on or before which complaints against the amount of rateable value entered in the ward assessment book will be received in his office.
(2) In every case in which any premises have for the first time been entered in the assessment book as liable to the payment of property taxes, or in which the rateable value of any pemises liable to such payment has been increased, the Commissioner shall, as soon as conveniently may be after the issue of the public notice under Sub-section (1), give a special written notice to the owner or occupier of the said premises specifying the nature of such entry and informing him that any complaint against the same will be received in his office at any time within fifteen days from the service of the special notice.
221. Time and manner of filing complaints against valuation:-
(1) Every complaint against the amount of any rateable value entered in the assessment book shall be made by written application to the Commissioner, which shall be left at his office on or before the day fixed in this behalf in the public or special notice aforesaid.
(2) Every such application shall set forth briefly but fully the grounds on which the valuation is complained against.
222. Notice to complainants of day fixed for investigation their complaints:-
The Commissioner shall cause all complaints so received to be registered in a book to be kept of this purpose and shall give notice in writing, to each complainant, of the day, time and place when and whereat his complaint shall be investigated.
223. Hearing of complaint:-
(1) At the time and place so fixed, the Commissioner shall investigate and dispose of the complaint in the presence of the complainant, if he shall appear, and if not, in his absence.
(2) For reasonable cause to be recorded, the Commissioner may, from time to time, adjourn the investigation.
(3) When the complaint is disposed of, the result thereof shall be noted in the book of complaints kept Under Section 222 and necessary amendments, if any shall be made in accordance with such result, in the assessment book."
7. A plain reading of Section 220 shows that the Commissioner is bound to give public notice of the day for filing of the complaint against the amount of rateable value in the ward assessment book but the date for receiving the complaint should not be less than 21 days from the date of publication of such notice. There are two situations in which the Commissioner is under an obligation to give a written special notice to the owner or the occupier of the premises specifying the nature of the entry and also informing him that any complaint against the same will be received in his office at any time within 15 days from the date of service of the special notice. The situations are:
(1) where any premises have been entered in the assessment book for the first time as liable to payment of property-taxes; and (2) where the rateable value of the premises liable to payment of tax has been increased.
8. The present case falls under the second category. There is also a provision with reference to assessment and levy of penalty in case where the building is constructed or reconstructed or portion of which is unauthorisedly constructed, but it is necessary to refer that aspect here. The substance of Section 221 of the Act is that it enables every complainant who is aggrieved by the amount of any rateable value entered in the assessment book to give a written application to the Commissioner at his office before the period specified either in the public notice or in the special notice, as the case may be. The Commissioner is, however, given the power to condone the delay where the complaint is not made within the specified time, if the dealy is explained to his satisfaction. Section 222 enjoins the Commissioner to maintain a register of complaints and to give notice in writing to each complainant, of the day, time and place when and whereat his complaint shall be investigated. The provisions of Section 223 are enacted to ensure that the complaints are investigated in the presence of the complainants and if for any reason, a complainant is absent, it also enables the Commissioner to adjourn the case for investigation from time to time, if reasonable cause is shown. Sub-section (3) of Section 223 of the Act directs that after the disposal of the complaint, the result of the same shall be noted in the book of complaints kept Under Section 222 of the Act and to make necessary amendments, if any, in the assessment book in accordance with the result. It is implicit in Sub-section (3) of Section 223 of the Act that the result of the disposal of the complaint should be communicated to the complainant. The mere fact that there is no specific requirement under Sub-section (3) does not absolve the Commissioner of this responsibility. We are therefore, of the view that on disposal of the complaint, the Commissioner is bound to communicate the result of the complaint to the complainant by a reasoned order as Section 282 of the Act entitles him to challenge that order in appeal before a Judge as defined under the Act. Sub-section (27) of Section 2 of the Act defines the 'Judge' as follows:
" 'the Judge' means in cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Hyderabad and shall include a Sub-Judge to whom such Judge may transfer in accordance with the provision of this Act an application or appeal for disposal."
9. As the property is situated in the city of Secunderabad, the appeal lies to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes who may transfer the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act to the Subordinate Judge.
10. Admittedly in this case no written order has been communicated to the petitioners intimating them the result of the investigation of their complain under Sub-section (3) of Section 223 of the Act. We, therefore, direct the 1st respondent to communicate the result of the complaint to the petitioners by a reasoned order.
11. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which remains to be dealt with, is that in view of Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 282 the tax payer cannot avail the right of appeal unless he deposits the tax in demand, so the right to file appeal is not an alternative remedy. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel. As long back as in 1974 it ha; been laid down by a learned single Judge of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad v. Tehera Begum, 1974 (2) APLJ 239 that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 282 (2) (d) the Judge, appellate authority, has power to grant stay of collection of tax in appropriate cases. We are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge. Therefore, it cannot be said that the right of appeal provided Under Section 282 is not an effective alternative remedy.
12. After receipt of the order of the Commissioner Under Section 223 (3), it would be open to the petitioners to challenge its validity, if they are so advised before the Judge referred to above.
13. The impugned demand shall not be given effect to till the order on their complaint is communicated to petitioners, duly granting 15 days time to enable the petitioners to approach the Judge.
14. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, but, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.