Dismissed

Chadalavada Srinivasa Rao v. The Tenali Municipality

Telangana HC20 Apr 2012WP/11336/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A common order disposing thirteen writ petitions filed by rate payers aggrieved by property tax enhancement by the Tenali Municipality. The court held that alternative remedies exist under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act and Rules. It directed the Commissioner to consider objections and avoid coercive action until internal appeals are exhausted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; Respondent directed to consider objections and provide opportunity before coercive action; Petitioners given time to avail remedy under Rule 22.

Chadalavada Srinivasa Rao Vs The Tenali… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.11329, 11330, 11331, 11332, 11333, 11334, 11335, 11336, 11337, 11338, 11339, 11340, 11341, 11342 AND 11343 OF 2012

¶3

20.04.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Chadalavada Venkateswara Rao

¶6

... Petitioner And The Tenali Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tenali, Guntur District, And others.

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶10

WRIT PETITION Nos.11329, 11330, 11331, 11332, 11333, 11334, 11335, 11336, 11337, 11338, 11339, 11340, 11341, 11342 AND 11343 OF 2012

¶11

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶12

As the issue in these cases is similar, it is convenient to dispose of these cases by a common order.

¶13

The petitioners herein are rate payers of Tenali Municipality. They own houses. They are assessed to property tax. Aggrieved by the action of the Tenali Municipality in enhancing the property tax, they filed the instant writ petitions. They contend that the enhancement is contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (the Act, for brevity) and the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Assessment of Tax) Rules, 1990 (the Rules, for brevity). Though the enhancement is small in terms of annual rateable value, the petitioners approached this Court contending that though they filed objections under Rule 11 of the Rules in Schedule II to the Act, they remain undisposed of and first respondent has initiated coercive action for collecting tax.

¶14

Rule 11 of the Rules requires the Commissioner to hear the objections (revision petitions) filed by the property tax payers, if any grievance is made out about the enhancement. Without therebeing proper disposal of the revisions under Rule 11 of the

¶15

Rules, the question of issuing notice of demand under Rule 27 of the Rules would not arise. Further, if any person is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner under Rule 11, further appeal to the Appellate Commissioner under Rule 22 would lie. In view of the alternative remedy, we are not inclined to interfere in these cases.

¶16

Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of directing the first respondent to consider each case with reference to the objections raised after giving an opportunity to the petitioners and pass reasoned order. The petitioners shall be given sufficient time to avail the remedy under Rule 22 of the Rules in Schedule II to the Act.

¶17

The writ petitions as also the WPMPs shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶19

________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J) 20.04.2012 pln

¶20

Note: Issue order copy by 24.04.2012. (by order) pln

Chadalavada Srinivasa Rao v. The Tenali Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chadalavada Srinivasa Rao v. The Tenali Municipality

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 Sub Divisional Inspector (Postal) Vs Smt. G. Sarojamma

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Mohd. Abdul Rahman

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Mohd. Salman

M. Gangadharam Vs The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn. and Nh)

M/s. Anupama Educational Society Vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal

M/s. Birla Tyres (Prop. Kesoram Industries Ltd.) Vs The Commercial Tax Officer