Allowed

Sabbineni Samrajya Lakshmi v. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Feb 2023WP/27700/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed three Writ Petitions, setting aside evaluation orders of 2009 that imposed vacant land tax on land not appurtenant to buildings under Section 212 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, relying on prior High Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Assessment Nos. 31531/1A/VLT, 31520/27DA/VLT, and 31534A/1A/VLT were set aside. No order as to costs.

Sabbineni Samrajya Lakshmi Vs The Vijayawada… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 27686,27693 and 27700 of 2009

¶3

COMMON ORDER:-

¶4

Since the petitioners in these Writ Petitions share similar grievance, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of all these three (3) Writ Petitions by way of this common order.

¶5

These three (3) Writ Petitions came to instituted questioning the assessment orders passed by the Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, imposing vacant land tax on the subject lands in purported exercise of power conferred under Section 212 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955. The respondent-Municipal Corporation issued the impugned assessment notices demanding from the petitioners the vacant land tax.

¶6

According to Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners, the impugned action suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned counsel that Sub-Section (2) of Section 212 of the Act enables the corporation to levy the tax on vacant land when the vacant land is appurtenant to a building and vacant land tax cannot be levied on the land which does not contain any structures. In support of his submission and contentions learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of

¶7

¶8

Mr.K.Rajiv vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 1 ALD 170 (DB).

¶9

On the contrary, Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation, strongly resisting the Writ Petitions contends that Section 197 of the Act read with Section 212 enables the respondentMunicipal Corporation to levy the vacant land tax.

¶10

A reading of the judgment of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred to supra shows that the same issue fell for consideration before the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In the aforesaid decision the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at paragraph 12 and 13 held as

¶11

follow:

¶12

A plain reading of the above provision shows that it is not a charging section. It is also not a provision prescribing the procedure for imposing a tax for fixing the percentage of tax. The said provision only provides for determining the rateable value for the purpose of fixing the percentage of tax to be levied by the Corporation under Section 199 of the Act. Therefore, no tax can be levied under Section 212 of the Act.

¶13

In the light of the scheme of taxation in the Act, levying 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.

¶14

It is not the case of the respondent-municipal

¶15

corporation that in the subject lands there are buildings.

¶16

¶17

Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid judgement the impugned action in the Writ Petitions cannot sustain in the eye of law.

¶18

For the aforesaid reasons the Writ Petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned Assessment Nos.31531/1A/VLT, dated 12-11-09, 31520/27DA/VLT, dated 11-8-09 and 31534A/1A/VLT, dated 12-11-09 respectively. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from invoking the aforesaid provisions of law, if any constructions are contemplated in the said properties. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

¶20

pending, shall also stand closed.

¶21

A.V. SESHA SAI, J

¶22

Date: 20.02.2023 MDP

Sabbineni Samrajya Lakshmi v. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabbineni Samrajya Lakshmi v. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. N. v Swamy, S/o. Narayanappa, Vs The State, Rep by the Secretary to Government of Ap

Sattar and Co, Rep.by its Managing Partner, Vs The state, rep.by by the Secretary to Government of

Bolisetty Lila Adhirarayana, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sajja Srinivasa Rao Vs The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Maddala Dharmaji Rao Vs The Commissioner

Bathula Manjeera, Vs The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada