Allowed

Jampa Kutumba Lakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC25 Feb 2013WP/30390/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions challenging property tax endorsements issued without reasons. The Court quashed the endorsements and directed the Municipality to pass reasoned orders within four weeks, levying costs for passing non-speaking orders.

What did the court decide?

Orders issued by the Municipality on 22.6.2012 were quashed. Commissioner directed to pass a reasoned order within four weeks. Municipality liable to pay costs.

Jampa Kutumba Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶2

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶3

W.P.No.30390 and 31109 of 2012

¶4

Common Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)

¶5

Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing Pleader for Municipal for the Administration for the 1^st respondent petitioner, Sri V.Ch. Naidu, learned Government and Smt. Shanti Neelam, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶6

The writ petitions are filed challenging the endorsements dt. 22.6.2012 issued by the Commissioner of the 2^nd respondent Municipality in respect of properties owned by the petitioner.

¶7

The petitioner is the owner of a House bearing Municipal No.3-3-7 ( Assessment No.1087008432) in Zone VI and House bearing Municipal No.6-17-2 ( Assessment No.1087008788) in Zone IX of Anakapalli Municipality, Visakhapatnam District. The property in Zone VI was being assessed to property tax of Rs.28,623/- per half year and the

¶8

property in Zone IX was being assessed to property tax of Rs.7,645/- per half year prior to 2011.

¶9

While so, special notices were issued in September and October 2011 under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 by the 2^nd respondent Municipality to the petitioner proposing to enhance the property tax to Rs.41,742/- per half year for the property of the petitioner in Zone VI and Rs.9,243/- per half year for the property of the petitioner in Zone IX.

¶10

The petitioner filed objections dt. 14.10.2011 to the proposed enhancement raising several issues not only disputing the plinth area and usage of the building but also contending that no physical inspection of the property was done or information called for from her regarding the plinth area, type of construction, nature of usage and estimated annual rental value. It is alleged that the special notice is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act; that the assessment of tax was done without considering the amount of rent which the building is capable of fetching; eligible statutory deductions were not given; and the Commissioner of the 2^nd respondent Municipality was not justified in revising

¶11

the property tax assessment in respect of the above properties.

¶12

The impugned endorsements dt.22.6.2012 were issued by the Commissioner of the 2^nd respondent Municipality fixing the property tax property in Zone VI at Rs.31,806/- (reducing it from the proposed revision of Rs.41,742/-) and confirming the revision of tax of Rs.9,243/- in respect of the property in Zone IX. No reasons are assigned in the impugned endorsements for the determination of tax made therein.

¶13

Challenging the same, these writ petitions are filed by the petitioner on the ground that no reasons are assigned by the Commissioner of the 2^nd respondent Municipality and contending that without application of mind and following the provisions of the Act, the enhancement in property tax has been made by it.

¶14

In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent initially, it was contended that the petitioner should have approached the Civil Court challenging the revision of property tax under Section 376(4) of the Act; that the petitioner has an

¶15

effective alternative remedy provided under the Act; that the petitioner is a chronic litigant and threatening the 2^nd respondent that she will not pay the property tax; and that the objections filed by the petitioner were considered before passing the endorsements.

¶16

On 28.9.2012, this Court directed the 1^st respondent to file a counter affidavit observing that non-speaking orders were being passed routinely while revising property tax in the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the State; that the regress in governance of municipal property tax management had assumed epidemic proportions; the 1^st respondent should take remedial action expeditiously either by way of imparting training to the assessing authorities or by having appropriate administrative protocols for dealing with assessment of property tax and consideration and disposal of revisions.

¶17

In response thereto, the 1^st respondent, through it’s Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, filed a counter stating that orientation training programme was held

¶18

on 10^th and 11^th of April, 2012 on Revenue Management in Urban Local Bodies at Dr. Marri Channa Reddy Human Resource Development Institute, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad; all the Commissioners of Municipalities and Municipal Corporations were trained and given booklets as to the manner in which revision of property tax is to be done; certain circulars were issued for guidance in relation to disposal of revision petitions and appeals; but in some cases, the Commissioners are not assigning any reasons in the revision petitions.

¶19

An additional counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent contending that the staff of the 2^nd respondent had personally visited the petitioner’s properties and scrutinized the objections of the petitioner; that the petitioner did not file any documents to substantiate her was objections; that the building in Zone VI demolished by the petitioner after the general revision of tax in 2007 and new building was constructed in 2009; that the building was used for non-residential and commercial purposes; and that the revision of property tax was justified.

¶20

We have noted the submissions of the respective parties.

¶21

In UNION OF INDIA v. M.L. CAPOOR^[1] , the Supreme Court held :

¶22

“ … Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject mater for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable.”

¶23

In S.N. MUKHERJEE v. UNION OF INDIA^[2] ,

¶24

the Supreme Court held that the requirement to record reasons is important as it would guarantee consideration by the authority, introduce clarity in the decisions, minimize chances of arbitrariness in decision making and also enable the superior courts such as the High Court and the Supreme Court to effectively exercise their supervisory powers.

¶25

A bare reading of the impugned endorsements show that the Commissioner of the 2^nd respondent Municipality has not assigned any reasons for reducing the proposed enhancement of property tax in respect of the property in Zone VI or for confirming the revision of property tax in respect of the property in Zone IX. None of the contentions raised by the petitioner in her objections have been adverted to or appear to have been considered by the Commissioner. We strongly deprecate such exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner. A revision in property tax adversely affects the rights of a citizen who owns property and as such it cannot be allowed to be done in an arbitrary and casual fashion by non-speaking orders.

¶26

In this view of the matter, the endorsements issued by the Commissioner of the 2^nd respondent Municipality on 22.6.2012 in respect of House bearing Municipal No.3-3-7 (Assessment No.1087008432) in Zone VI and House bearing Municipal No.6-17-2 (Assessment No.1087008788) in Zone IX of Anakapalli Municipality, Visakhapatnam District belonging to the petitioner

¶27

and impugned in both the writ petitions are quashed; the Commissioner is directed to consider the objections of the petitioner to the special notices issued by him and pass a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; the 2^nd respondent shall also liable to pay costs of Rs.1000/- in each of the writ petitions to the petitioner for passing non-speaking orders in the revision petitions filed by the petitioner.

¶28

The writ petitions are allowed with costs in terms mentioned above.

¶29

JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶30

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶31

Date: 25-02-2013 Kk

¶32

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶33

AND