Disposed

Kovvuri Pundarikaksha Reddy,Vsp v. State of Ap,Rep.by Prl.Scy,Mun Adm,Hyd,and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Feb 2024WP/27574/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged property tax assessment on four door numbers as violating Rules 9 to 11 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Assessment of Property Tax) Rules, 1990. For three sold properties tax arrears were cleared by vendees; for D.No.11-144 a representation dated 15.12.2010 was pending. The Court directed the Commissioner to treat that representation as a statutory revision and decide

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of GVMC directed to treat petitioner's representation dated 15.12.2010 as revision for D.No.11-144 and dispose of it in accordance with law; no costs.

Kovvuri Pundarikaksha Reddy,Vsp Vs State… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

.r'>

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special OriginalJurisdiction)

¶3

fejfciK

¶4

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 27574 OF 2011

¶7

Between;

¶8

Kovvgri Pundarikaksha Reddy, S/o. Late Gopala Reddy, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.30-6-10, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administrative and Urban Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Commissioner.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action^ofthe respondent in violating the rules 9 to 11 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Assessment of Property Tax) Rules, 1990 is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to assess the tax duly following the rules 9 to 11 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Assessment of Property Tax) Rules, 1990 in respect of the petitioner who is resident of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

¶15

S'! i r 3; i

¶16

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 34006 OF 2011)

¶18

%■ V;'ft' Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} "^stdfed in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} r .n'"'l^le^sed to restrain the respondents from collecting^{therevisedtaxforthe} Year 2010-11 over and above 75% of the pre-revised^taxfrom ■; «?■ wthei-' petitioner in the interest of justice, pending^{disposalofthewritpetition.}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. G V S MEHAR KUMAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No,1:GP FORMUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.MADHAVA REDDY^(SCFOR GVMC)

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

I p';TA'I ■i. 7 f

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.27574 OF 2011

¶25

Between:

¶26

Kowuri Pundarikaksha Reddy, S/o Late Gopala Reddy, Business, R/o D.No.30-6-10, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioner

¶27

And

¶28

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A.P.Secret^riat, Hyderabad and another. ... Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G.Rama Gopal Counsel for respondent No.l ; GP for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri K.Madhava Reddy, Standing Counsel.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The 8.bove writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent authorities in assessing properly tax in^relationto door numbers 30-6-10/1, 30-6-10, 30-6-9 85 11-144, in violation of Rules 9 to 11 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

¶31

Page 2 of 5

¶32

SRS,J W.P.No.27574 of 2011

¶33

(Assessment of Property Tax) Rules, 1990, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶34

Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing^Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to special notice dated 29.07.2010 in respect^ofthree door numbers i.e. 30-6-10/1, 30-6-10 85 30-6-9, petitioner^filed revision before the authority, immediately. In respect^ofDoor No. 11-144, petitioner filed a separate revision by way of representation dated 15.12.2010. He further would submit that inspite of representations made by the petitioner, the authority failed to consider the same and in fact, the petitioner is keep on making representations.

¶36

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent^No.2. It was contended, inter-alia, that the petitioner sold building, bearing D.No.30-6-9, 10 & 10/5 (10/1) situated at Krishna _• Gardens, presently within the limits of Zone-IV, GVMC, 7 ¥isakhapatnam through registered sale deed dated 04.07.2019

» I I: I I

r.'

Page 3 of 5

SRS,J W.P.Np.27574of2011

¶43

Sharma and others. The vendees to one Gayathri Devi demolished the entire building and applied for plan^approvalfor construction of apartment. The purchaser had cleared^theentire arrears of tax to the said door numbers up to date. It was further contended that .in respect of building Door^No.11-144, Adivivaram, petitioner paid the property tax, as per the enhanced rates and there are no arrears.

¶44

Thus, as seen from the pleadings, petitioner seems^made representations/revision against the special notice in^respectof Door No. 11-144, Adivivaram. In respect of door numbers^30-6- 10/1, 30-6-10 86 30-6-9, since the petitioner sold^theproperty and the vendees cleared the entire tax, this Court^isnotgoing into that aspect.

¶45

Learned counsel, for the petitioner would submit^thatin respect of door No.l 1-144, the revision is still pending.^Learned Standing Counsel would submit that petitioner paid^theentire tax in respect of D.No.l 1-144.

¶46

Seems pursuant to the special notice, petitioner filed statutory revision before the authority and the same^ispending.

¶47

Page 4 of 5

¶48

SRS,J W.P.No.27574 of 2011

¶49

However, the respondent authority would contend that no such revision is pending and infact, petitioner paid the taxes.

¶50

Without going into dispute fact as to whether the revision is pending or not, in view of the fact that petitioner made representations, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the learned Commissioner of respondent No.2 to treat the representation made by the petitioner dated 15.12.2010 filed at page No. 18 of the material papers, as revision in respect of D.No. 11-144 and dispose of the same, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shall stand dismissed. Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

To,

¶54

The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal^{Administrativeand} Urban Development Department, the State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶55

The Commissioner, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam.

¶56

One CC to Sri. G V S Mehar Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶58

One CC to Sri. K. Madhava Reddy (SC for GVMC), Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

Three CD Copies

¶60

¶61

¶62

. v ; HIGH COURT DATED;13/02/2024 '^V'7 4/: / >■' ^ f

¶63

ORDER

¶64

WP.No.27574 of 2011

¶65

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Kovvuri Pundarikaksha Reddy,Vsp v. State of Ap,Rep.by Prl.Scy,Mun Adm,Hyd,and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kovvuri Pundarikaksha Reddy,Vsp v. State of Ap,Rep.by Prl.Scy,Mun Adm,Hyd,and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New Shopping Complex Municipal Vegetable Market Association Vs the State of Ap

A Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vempati Suryanarayana, W.G.Dist., and Anr. Vs Eluru Mun.Corp.,Rep.by Commnr.,W.G.Dist.

S. Bhagyavathi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Chinna Ramakka Vs the State of Ap

Smt.Chinna Ramakka Vs The State of A.P.