Allowed

Mothay Anja Naga Raja Mohan, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Nov 2012WP/23951/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a revisional order from the Municipal Corporation of Eluru that confirmed enhanced property tax without recording reasons. The court held this exercise of power perversely deprived of reason being links between facts and conclusions. The order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned revisional order dated 2.1.2012 quashed; respondent directed to dispose petition afresh recording reasons; Writ allowed with costs of Rs.5000/-.

Mothay Anja Naga Raja Mohan, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶3

WP No.23951 of 2012

¶4

Mothay Anja Naga Raja Mohan

¶5

V State of A.P. and another.

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶7

WP No.23951 of 2012

¶8

Order : ( Per Sri GR, J )

¶9

Heard Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, and Sri A.Sridhar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent-Municipal Corporation of Eluru, Eluru. The petitioner is a ‘Kartha’ of Hindu Undivided Family, owning certain non residential buildings and properties within limits of the 2^nd respondent-Municipal Corporation. The present lis pertains to the property bearing Door No.4-2-22 (8054), Ward No.5, Agraharam, Eluru Town bearing assessment No.1075027325.

¶10

On 27-9-2007, a special notice was issued to the petitioner proposing enhancement of property tax from Rs.18,813/- to Rs.41,743/- half yearly. The petitioner preferred a revision to the 2^nd respondent in RP No.416/2007. The 2^nd respondent by the order dated

¶11

17-3-2008 reduced the proposed enhanced tax and fixed the property tax at Rs.28,219.50 ps. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru in CMA No.11 of 2008 was rejected. The petitioner preferred a further appeal to this Court in CMSA No.36 of 2010 and the same is stated to be pending.

¶12

While so, the 2^nd respondent issued a demand notice for the first half year of 2011-12 for Rs.28,220/-, which is stated to have been paid ( by the petitioner) on 15.9.2011. Thereafter, on 19.10.2011, the petitioner received another special notice whereby the 2^nd respondent proposed to enhance the property tax from Rs.28,219/- to Rs.40,911/- half yearly on the alleged ground that there was difference in measurements of the property in question. On 2-11-2011, the petitioner submitted objections under Section 221 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. This was disposed of on 2.1.2012 by the order impugned and the property tax proposed to be enhanced to Rs.40,911/half yearly is now confirmed at Rs.34,184/-. This order is now under challenge.

¶13

The impugned order is an unique illustration of the gross perversity in exercise of jurisdiction by the 2^nd respondent. In view of the degree of perversity, we

¶14

consider it appropriate to extract the same :

¶15

“ General Revision Petition No.1075000373 dt:

¶16

2/1/2012

¶17

Subject : Disposal of – General Revision Petition – Endorsement issued.

¶18

Reference : General Revision Petition dated 2/1/2-12 After conducting due enquiry and verifying the records, your General Revision Petition has been disposed of duly fixing the property tax at Rs.34184.00 per half year.

¶19

It is to be noted that Half Year Tax is Reduced/confirmed from Rs.40911.00 to Rs.34184.00.

¶20

Sd/Commissioner. ”

¶21

In para “4” of the affidavit in the writ petition, the petitioner pleads inter alia that the process enjoined by the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 has not been followed and that in exercise of revisional power under Section.225 of the Act, the Commissioner is required to record reasons.

¶22

It is axiomatic that the reasons are the links between conclusions recorded and facts on the basis of which conclusions are recorded. Ipse dixit conclusions without accompanying reasons constitutes exercise of despotic power not democratic responsibility. It is unfortunate that revisional powers are conferred on incumbents who are not imparted even minimum training for exercise of such responsible powers which partake the nature of quasi judicial power. Passing of such perverse orders adds to avoidable adjudicatory burden on this Court and to litigative trauma of citizens.

¶23

For the aforesaid reasons, the revisional order dated 2.1.2012 passed in General Revision Petition No.1075000373 by the 2^nd respondent cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the revision of the petitioner preferred against the enhancement of property tax in respect of Door No.4-222 (8054), Ward No.5, Agraharam, Eluru Town, afresh and dispose of the same by recording reasons for the decision proposed to be recorded in the fresh revisional order.

¶24

Since the impugned revisional order has been passed without even minimum regard for established principles of law, we consider it appropriate to allow this Writ Petition with costs of Rs.5000/-, out of which Rs.2,500/- shall be paid to the petitioner and Rs.2,500/- to the credit of the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶25

_______ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶26

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO,

¶27

¶28

Date :20-11-12 kk

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶30

WP No.23951 of 2012

¶31

Dated 20-11-2012

Mothay Anja Naga Raja Mohan, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mothay Anja Naga Raja Mohan, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

M/S Big Apple Computers, Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati. Vs Agricultural Market Committee, Proddatur

Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad Vs M/s. Gvl Balaji Chits.

M/s. Rainbow Advertising, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Ch.Usha Rani Vs Suryapet Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner

M/s. Rainbow Advertising, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation