Allowed

Boddapati Saraswathi at Atchayyamma v. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Feb 2024WP/35567/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A householder challenged the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation's order cancelling her property tax assessment following a third party's representation. Since the Commissioner ignored two High Court orders that had set aside the underlying allotment G.O., the writ petition was allowed and the matter remitted for fresh orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment-cancellation proceedings dated 18.08.2012 and 28.08.2012 set aside; matter remitted to GVMC Commissioner to pass fresh orders within six weeks after notices; pending miscellaneous

Boddapati Saraswathi at Atchayyamma Vs… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

• PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35567 OF 2012

¶7

Between:

¶8

Boddapati Saraswathi @ Atchayyamma, W/o.B.V.R.M. Naidu, Hindu, Aged about 38 Years, Occ ; Housewife, R/o. D. No. 11-248/3, Ramakrishna Nagar, Popularly known as Judgegari Thota, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner, Pendurthy Zone-VI, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam.

¶13

B. Ravinookeswara Rao, S/o. B. Sanyasi Naidu, Aged^about29Years Occ : Employee, R/o.D.No.11-274/3, Flat No.202, Janachaitanya Apartments, 0pp. Police Station, Gopalapuram, Visakhapatnam.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the

¶16

nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declare the Proceedings in RC.No.32/08/Zone-VI (REV)/GVMC/ dated 18-08-2012 of Z.C./ZoneVl/GVMC dated 28-08-2012 is illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and in violation of Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of^{Indiaandincontrary to} the order dated 13-08-2011 in WP.No.16914 of 2011 and^{consequentlyset} aside the same and further direct the Respondent No.1 to restore the Tax Assessment of the Property of the Petitioner vide Assessment No.100005/70316 at Door No.11- 248/3, Gopalapatnam,^{Visakhapatnam.} I.A. NO: 2 OF 2012 (WPMP. NO: 45209 OF 2012) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to suspend the Orders in RC.No.32/08/ZoneVI^(REV)/GVMC/ dated 18-08-2012 of Z.C./Zone-VI/GVMC dated 28-08-2012^issuedbythe respondent no-1 pending disposal of the above Writ^Petition.

¶17

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2012 (WPMP. NO: 45210 OF 2012)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to collect the^{PropertyTaxfor} Property Tax Assessment No.100005/70316 at Door No.11-248/3, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of above^{WritPetition.}

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WVMP. NO: 4538 OF 2012)

¶20

Between:

¶21

Boddapati Saraswathi @ Atchayyamma, W/o.B.V.R.M. Naidu,^Hindu,Aged about 38 Years, Occ ; Housewife, R/o. D. No.11-248/3,^{RamakrishnaNagar,} Popularly known as Judgegari Thota, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam^District.

...PETITIONER

AND

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation,^Rep.byits Commissioner, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

¶26

The Assistant Commissioner, Pendurthy Zone-VI, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam.

¶27

B. Ravinookeswara Rao, S/o. B. Sanyasi Naidu, Aged^about29Years Occ : Employee, R/o.D.No.11-274/3, Flat No.202, Janachaitanya Apartments, 0pp. Police Station, Gopalapuram, Visakhapatnam.

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to vacate the interim orders passed by this^{Hon’bleCourton19-} 11-2012 in W.P.M.P.No. 45209 of 2012 in the present^{W.P.No.35567of} 2012.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. T D PHANI KUMAR

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : SRI K MADHAVA REDDY,^SCFOR GVMC

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Ms. P. AKHILA NAIDU^REPFORSRI YEKA BALASUBRAHMANYAM

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.35567 of 2012

¶36

Saraswathi @ Boddapati Atchayyamma, W/o. B.V.R.M. Naidu, Hindu, aged about 38 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. D. No. 11-248/3, Ramakrishna Nagar, popularly known as Judgegari Thota, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner

¶37

Versus

¶38

The Greater Visakhapatnam. Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam and two others. ...Respondents

¶39

: Sri T.D. Phani Kumar Counsel for the petitioner Counsel for respondent Nos.l & 2 : Sri K. Madhava Reddy ; Sri Y. Bala Counsel for respondent No.3 Subramanyam

¶40

ORDER

¶41

is filed impugning the The above writ petition of respondent No.l proceedings issued by the Commissioner vide RC.No.32/08/Zone-VI (REV)/GVMC/ dated 18.08.2012 28.08.2012, whereby the of Z.C./Zone-VI/GVMC dated in respect of assessment made in favour of the petitioner

¶42

Page 2 of 6

¶43

SRS, J W.P,No.3S567 of 2012

¶44

house bearing door No. 11-248/3 vide assessment No. 100005/70316 has been cancelled.

¶45

Heard Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing^counsel appearing for respondent Nos.l & 2 and Ms P. Akhila Naidu learned counsel representing Sri Y. Bala Subramanyam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶46

The petitioner along with his family members has been residing in the house bearing door No. 11-248/3 admeasuring 420 sq. yards in Sy.No.l/2A of Ramakrishna Nagar. The petitioner occupied the plot and developed^the same by constructing asbestos sheet roofed house. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002, wherein* certain guidelines were issued for allotment of excess land under Section 23 of Urban Land Ceiling^Act.

¶47

The Municipal authorities assigned door number to the construction made by the petitioner and the same was assessed to property tax vide assessment No. 100005/70316. The 3'’'^ respondent seems made

¶48

Page 3 of 6

¶49

SRS, J W.P.No.35567 of 2012

¶50

representation to the 1st respondent to cancel the assessment made in favour of the petitioner. By proceedings dated 03.03.2008 pide RC.No.32/08/AC-6,^the assessment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.l6914 of 2008. The said writ petition was allowed on 30.08.2011^by setting aside the proceedings dated 03.03.2008 and^liberty was given to the respondents therein to issue notices to^the petitioner as well as the respondent and x:onduct further enquiry. Accordingly, notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted explanation on 21.12.2011 and additional explanation on 18.04.2012.

¶51

As seen from the order, the Commissioner, after obtaining opinion from learned standing counsel, passed the orders impugned. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that plot Nos.39 and 40 were allotted to^the 3'''^ re spondent and his brother and hence, the assessment^was cancelled.

¶52

In fact, in the additional explanation dated 18.04.2012, the petitioner brought to the notice of the Commissioner about the order passed by this Court in

¶53

Page 4 of 6

¶54

SRS, J W.P.No.35567 of 2012

¶55

W.P.No. 12830 of 2005 quashing G.O.Ms.No.705 dated 10.09.2004 and the order in W.A.No.372 of 2012 dated 29.03.2012. The order impugned was not ev^n referredⁱⁿ the orders dated 27.12.2011 in W.P.No. 12830 of 2005 and W.A.No.372 of 2012 dated 29.03.2012.

¶56

Learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 12830 of 2005 had set aside the G.O.Ms.No.705 dated 10.09.2004 in respect of allotment made in favour of respondent Nos.3 & 4 therein i.e., respondent No.3 herein and his brother. Learned Single Judge further directed the Special Chief Secretary to pass appropriate orders basing on the report submitted by the Special Officer and Competent Authority Lfrban Land Ceiling. The order passed by learned Single Judge was upheld in the intra court appeal.

¶57

Since the l®t respondent failed to take note of these two orders and passed the order impugned, the impugned proceedings dated 18.08.2012 and 28.08.2012 are liable^to be set aside.

¶58

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of

¶59

/•

¶60

Page 5 of 6

¶61

SRS, J W.P.No.35567or2012

¶62

¶63

respondent No.l vide RC.No.32/08/Zone-VI (REV)/GVMC/ dated 18.08.2012 of Z.C./Zone-VI/GVMC dated 28.08.2012. The matter is remitted to the l^t respondent. -The 1 St respondent shall consider the orders in W.P.No.12830 of 2005 and W.A.No.372 of 2012 and pass fresh orders in accordance with law within a period of six (06) weeks^from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The l^t The re spondent shall also consider the documents, authority, if necessary, shall issue notices afresh to the respective parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶64

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶65

shall stand dismissed.

¶66

¶67