Appeal by the Food Corporation of India against dismissal of its suit challenging the Gram Panchayat's property tax demand on six godowns. The court held the godowns were not exempt absent a Government order, and that levy on capital value, including land value, was valid under the Act. Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ÐÏࡱá>þÿ
wyþÿÿÿvÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ð¿ÒFbjbjqPqP ;|::‘>@ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤ (((8`œü4 G8„<<"^^^^^^Æ7È7È7È7È7È7È7$Ë9h3<�‚ì7^^ì7^^8ëëë„^^Æ7ëÆ7ëëŽR,hŽ^0P¬Ÿib§Ð(<º,Æ780G8Ê,ĵ<�O8µ<� Ž-Ž-µ<�¢-$ ^nÂë0œÌÃ^^^ì7ì7‡d^^^G8 „¤„ ¤ ÿÿÿÿTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTY A.S.No.776 of 1997 JUDGMENT The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.90 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), preferred this appeal challenging the decree and judgment dated 01.04.1997, where-under a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the notice dated 18.12.1986 as arbitrary and illegal and for consequential injunction, was dismissed. 2. For convenience of reference, the status of the parties before the trial Court in O.S.No.90 of 1987 is adopted throughout the judgment. 3. The plaintiff is a Food Corporation of India, a statutory body having its office at Kakinada in East Godavari District, and Dowlaiswaram Village. The defendant is a Gram Panchayat, Dowlaiswaram. The plaintiff acquired the land for construction of six godowns for storage of food grains and entrusted the construction work to M/s. National Project Construction Corporation, and out of six godowns, only possession of 2 godowns was handed over and possession of other 4 godowns is yet to be handed over by the National Project Construction Corporation. 4. While the matter stood thus, the defendant Gram Panchayat issued the plaintiff, a notice dated 18.12.1986 demanding payment of Rs.1,81,400-55 ps towards property tax under single assessment number for six godowns. After receipt of the notice, the plaintiff filed objection by way of letter dated 01.01.1987 requesting the defendant to furnish the details of assessment to take further action in the matter. Thereupon, the defendant addressed a letter dated 02.01.1987 to the plaintiff giving the particulars of demand. As per the particulars, the Assessing Authority took into consideration, the capital value of the building and assessed the tax at Rs.1,81,400-55 ps for the assessment year 1986-87 w.e.f. 31.03.1987. Thereupon, the plaintiff addressed a letter dated 28.02.1987 to the defendant questioning the levy of tax on the godowns as they belong to Food Corporation of India and not liable for tax as the godowns are exempted from levy of property tax. 5. Subsequently, the defendant addressed another letter dated 05.03.1987 contending that there was no exemption in the Gram Panchayat Act to the properties belonging to the Food Corporation of India unless by a Government Order. Therefore, the levy of property tax on the six godowns belonging to the plaintiff is illegal and arbitrary for the following reasons; The Gram Panchayat cannot take into consideration the value of the land which was acquired by the Government under Land Acquisition Act; The Gram Panchayat has to take into consideration the proper value of the buildings but it cannot take into consideration the value of the land on which the buildings were constructed; The Gram Panchayat did not take into consideration the actual value of the construction of the building; The levy of tax on the capital value is against the provisions of Gram Panchayat Act; In the absence of any order from the Government, the defendant is not competent to levy the tax under Section 71 of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act. Therefore, the levy of tax on the 6 godowns belonging to the plaintiff is illegal, arbitrary and prayed to declare that the same as illegal and arbitrary and to grant consequential permanent injunction. 6. The defendant filed written statement admitting levy of property tax on the 6 godowns belonging to the plaintiff while contending that a statutory notice under Section 144 of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) is required to be issued before institution of the suit and for want of such notice, the suit is not maintainable. The defendant further contended that the property was assessed to tax based on capital value as it is provided by the provisions of the Act and the letter correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant shows the basis for the assessment. The plaintiff is not exempted from payment of property tax since no Government order was passed exempting such payment by the Food Corporation of India and thereby, levy of tax cannot be declared as arbitrary and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following five issues; Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential injunction as prayed for? Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice u/s.144 of the A.P.Gram Panchayat Act? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to exemplary costs? And to what relief? 8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked and on behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B26 were marked. 9. Upon hearing the argument of both the counsel and considering oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the levy of tax is strictly in compliance of the provisions of the Act and the same cannot be declared as arbitrary or capricious and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial Court, the present appeal is preferred on various grounds. The main contentions are as under; the defendant is not permitted to levy property tax without any G.O., issued by the Government under Section 71 of the Act and thereby, levy of tax is illegal; the defendant is incompetent to levy tax on the godowns as they belongs to the Government and that there is no evidence on record to establish that the defendant Gram Panchayat complied the provisions of the Act in substance. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court are erroneous and liable to be set aside and requested to re-appraise the evidence and pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. 10. During the course of arguments, Sri D. Rama Krishna, Advocate for the appellant, would contend that the buildings belonging to Food Corporation of India are exempted from tax as they belongs to the Government and no tax can be levied on it. In addition to the said contention, he specifically contended that the levy of property tax on the basis of the capital value is erroneous and at best, the defendant is entitled to levy tax only basing on the rental value, but the trial Court did not consider this contention in proper perspective and committed an error, and finally, he prayed to allow the appeal setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant argued totally in support of the findings recorded by the trial Court, specifically raising a contention that unless the Government exempts by an order exempting the buildings belonging to the plaintiff for payment of tax, the defendant Gram Panchayat is competent to levy property tax on the godowns. The provisions of the Act provide to levy tax either on the basis of annual value or of capital value. Therefore, the levy of tax by the defendant is totally in accordance with law and the trial Court did not commit any error and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Considering rival contentions and perusing the decree and the judgment of the trial Court so also the oral and documentary evidence on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows; Whether the buildings belonging to the plaintiff Food Corporation of India are exempted from levy of property tax by the defendant Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Act? Whether the levy of tax based on capital value is in accordance with law, if not the demand made by the defendant for payment of Rs.1,81,400-55 ps is illegal and arbitrary? Whether the demand of Rs.1,81,400-55 ps for the assessment year 1986-87 be declared as illegal and arbitrary? Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential permanent injunction? To what result? 13. Point No.1: The first and foremost contention of the plaintiff is that the godowns belonging to the Food Corporation are exempted from levy of property tax by the Gram Panchayat. This contention was negatived by the trial Court on the ground that the buildings belonging to the plaintiff are not exempted under the provisions of the Act, except by a Government order. This finding is challenged before this Court again on the basis of the provisions of Section 70 of the Act. A perusal of Section 70(4) of the Act, the Government may exempt specified classes of houses from tax. Under Section 70(4) of the Act, the same is extracted as hereunder; “(4) The Government may make rules providing for- the exemption of specified classes of houses from the tax; the manner of ascertaining the annual or capital value of houses or the categories into which they fall for the purposes of taxation; the persons who shall be liable to pay the tax and the giving of notices of transfer of houses; the grant of exemptions from the tax on the ground of poverty; the grant of vacancy and other remissions; and the circumstances in which, and the conditions subject to which, houses constructed, reconstructed or demolished or situated in areas included in, or excluded from, the village, during any year, shall be liable or cease to be liable to the whole or any portion of the tax. It is clear from Section 70(4) of the Act that an order from the Government is required exempting from levy of property tax. Admittedly, the Government did not pass any order exempting the buildings belonging to the plaintiff, Food Corporation of India. On the other hand, in cross-examination of P.W.1, he admitted that the plaintiff owned and possessed godowns at different places including Kakinada and property tax is being paid for the said godowns. Therefore, it is clear from the evidentiary admission of P.W.1 that the Food Corporation is not exempted from payment of property tax and no Government order was passed exempting payment of property tax by the plaintiff. In those circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim exemption from payment of property tax to the defendant Gram Panchayat without any Government order, so, this contention cannot be accepted for the above reason. Hence, the finding of the trial Court is free from any legal infirmity and the same is hereby sustained holding this point in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. 14. Point No.2: The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant both in the grounds of the appeal and in the arguments is that levy of property tax is based on capital value and is against the provisions of Section 70 of the Act. At this stage, it is relevant to advert to Section 70(1)(b) of the Act and is extracted hereunder for better appreciation; “House-tax: (1) The house-tax referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 69 shall, subject to the rules in Schedule II and to such other rules as may be prescribed, be levied on all houses in the village on any one of the following basis, namely; (a) annual rental value, or (b) capital value, or (c ) such
**other basis as may be prescribed”. A bare look at Section 70(1) of the Act, the property tax can be levied on the basis of annual rental value or capital value or on such other basis as may be prescribed. Thus, Section 70(1)(b) of the Act provides levy of property tax on the basis of capital value. Therefore, the contention that the levy of property tax on the basis of capital value is illegal cannot be sustained in view of Section 70(1)(b) of the Act. 15. In the present case, M/s. National Project Construction Corporation addressed a letter, disclosing the value of the buildings, which is marked as Ex.B10 and similarly, the value of the land was disclosed by the Collector under Ex.B8. Basing on Exs.B8 and B10, the Gram Panchayat fixed the capital value of the godowns and levied tax. The major contention of the plaintiff is that the value of the land cannot be taken into consideration by levying tax. But as seen from Section 70(1)(b) of the Act, based on capital value, which is inclusive of the land and construction thereof, represents the capital value. Therefore, levy of property tax based on capital value is not an erroneous assessment. 16. The main contention of the plaintiff is that unless the Government permits to levy tax in general rules by passing an order, the Gram Panchayat is incompetent to revise the tax or levy tax against the plaintiff. Under Section 70 of the Act and under G.O.Ms.No.282 dated 12.03.1965, the capital value of the property can be taken for levy of property tax. Accordingly, based on Ex.B3-letter issued by National Project Construction Corporation, the value of the property was Rs.2,00,15,547/and the total value of the construction was Rs.2,32,85,301/-, as per Ex.B11. If the value of the building construction and land is taken into consideration, the levy of property tax at Rs.1,81,400-55 ps for the year 1986-87 is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If the levy is during general revision a Government order is required, but the levy is on newly constructed building for which no notification by Government is required. Hence the contention of the plaintiff that in the absence of Government Order tax cannot be levied is unsustainable. 17. One of the contentions of the defendant is that out of 6 godowns, only possession of 2 godowns was delivered and possession of 4 godowns is not yet delivered by M/s. National Project Construction Corporation. However, the same was disbelieved by the trial Court based on the letter of the Manager, M/s. National Project Construction Corporation, wherein it is disclosed that the construction of the godowns was completed, except to attend minor works. Taking possession of the property by the plaintiff is not a relevant consideration to levy tax when the buildings exclusively belong to the plaintiff. Therefore, levy of tax on six godowns based on capital value is totally in accordance with law and it is in strict adherence of Section 70(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court cannot be found fault and accordingly, the finding of the trial Court is upheld holding this point in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. 18. Point No.3: In view of my findings on points 1 and 2, the assessment of levy of tax by the defendant against the plaintiff is in accordance with law and the counsel for the plaintiff did not question non-compliance of any provisions of the Act in substance and ineffect. In the absence of such challenge, no examination is required to find out the compliance of statutory provisions of the Act while levying property tax in substance and ineffect. Therefore, the levy of property tax on 6 godowns belonging to the plaintiff cannot be declared as arbitrary and illegal. Hence, I find no illegality in the finding recorded by the trial Court in declining to grant a decree for declaration that the demand notice dated 18.12.1986, as illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the point is held against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. 19. Point No.4: According to my findings on points 1 to 3, the plaintiff is not entitled to the primary relief of declaration under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, thereby the question of granting consequential relief of permanent injunction does not arise. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its men from recovery of property tax under Ex.A1-demand notice. Accordingly, the point is held against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. 20. Point No.5: In view of my findings on points 1 to 4, I find that the appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed, but without costs in the circumstances of the case. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand dismissed. _____________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTY, J 8th June, 2015 sj PAGE PAGE 7 MSM, J A.S.No.776 of 1997 -./047:>BCKLNOPçôèÜÐ輨”¨”¨€¨o_K=/h|‚CJOJQJ^JaJhûOCJOJQJ^JaJ'h$y¬5>*CJOJQJ\^JmH sH h§2CJOJQJ^JmH sH !h§2>*CJOJQJ^JmH sH 'h9!ç5>*CJOJQJ\^JmH sH 'hl(•5>*CJOJQJ\^JmH sH 'h\U5>CJOJQJ\^JmH sH 'h;n5>CJOJQJ\^JmH sH hª/ÍCJOJQJ^Jh\CJOJQJ^Jh§2CJOJQJ^Jh\UCJOJQJ^J/0CLOÛ g “]ÊSuúîâÜÔÁ²£”…www$ &Fdha$gdsu«$„dà^„a$gdÙ(ƒ$„dà^„a$gdþû$„dà^„a$gd¹ È$„dà^„a$gdl.·$„„Ðdà^„„Ða$gdºÑ*$1$gd$y¬ Æ€$ Æ€a$gdl(•$ Æ€a$gd;ndh ‘FÑFþþç) Ú Û Þ B E Z [ f g j à å ú ý }ˆ´µøòäÖÈ·©·©·˜·Š|nn`nRnDnh:jåCJOJQJ^JaJh{»CJOJQJ^JaJhïCJOJQJ^JaJhXƒCJOJQJ^JaJh¹ ÈCJOJQJ^JaJhv26CJOJQJ^JaJ hèg h PCJOJQJ^JaJhÖ9CJOJQJ^JaJ
hèg h€d®CJOJQJ^JaJhl.·CJOJQJ^JaJhûOCJOJQJ^JaJhv26CJOJQJ^JaJhCóCJOJQJ^JaJøý GT“–³äå# $ Z[bcçè12fòäÖÈäºä¬äºäžä‚tffXJhIM CJOJQJ^JaJhÁ.mCJOJQJ^JaJh“+yCJOJQJ^JaJhu9CJOJQJ^JaJh¡¥CJOJQJ^JaJh+üCJOJQJ^JaJhþ }CJOJQJ^JaJhc&CJOJQJ^JaJh+I0CJOJQJ^JaJhBzCJOJQJ^JaJhXƒCJOJQJ^JaJhmyCJOJQJ^JaJf”•ÃÇâåèé%4]•– ÎÑ/1qr„òäòÖòÈòºò¬òžòò‚òtòfòXòJhCJOJQJ^JaJh™CJOJQJ^JaJh"CJOJQJ^JaJhqdnCJOJQJ^JaJhöCJOJQJ^JaJhé#÷CJOJQJ^JaJhÙ ãëòäÖäȺ¬ž‚t‚fXfXfJf<�h$zíCJOJQJ^JaJh[b¾CJOJQJ^JaJhŠvQCJOJQJ^JaJhDDFCJOJQJ^JaJhäbCJOJQJ^JaJh˜— CJOJQJ^JaJhþÓCJOJQJ^JaJhXeCJOJQJ^JaJh{YCJOJQJ^JaJh&çCJOJQJ^JaJhï+öCJOJQJ^JaJhsu«CJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJhŠ CJOJQJ^JaJuËc/ƒ×lÕ åš:Ös!ß#ññâââÔÔÔÔÔȹ¹««œœœ$„dà^„a$gdÊU±$ &Fdàa$gdÊU±$„dà^„a$gdA>Š$„^„a$gd™OÂ$ &Fdha$gd™OÂ$„dà^„a$gd$ &Fdha$gdsu«ëˆõúFO‚ƒ× #¯°åçèrïóòäòÖòÈòº¬ò›qcqcqUG9Gh8SCJOJQJ^JaJhÊU±CJOJQJ^JaJhIS”CJOJQJ^JaJhÆ&1CJOJQJ^JaJh? kÀCJOJQJ^JaJhT=CJOJQJ^JaJh™OÂCJOJQJ^JaJ*
**h™OÂhA>ŠCJOJQJ^JaJhpºCJOJQJ^JaJhXeCJOJQJ^JaJhúj"CJOJQJ^JaJh¢†CJOJQJ^JaJh¡ZNCJOJQJ^JaJhA>ŠCJOJQJ^JaJ˜™šotÖ !!!r!s!w!òäÖäÈ京ž¬‚¬t¬fXJfä<�h…!CJOJQJ^JaJh!bŸCJOJQJ^JaJhM#CJOJQJ^JaJhd*aCJOJQJ^JaJhÈ4ûCJOJQJ^JaJh ÆCJOJQJ^JaJhÂCˆCJOJQJ^JaJhùPCJOJQJ^JaJhzUCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJhI CJOJQJ^JaJh? kÀCJOJQJ^JaJhÊU±CJOJQJ^JaJh1žCJOJQJ^JaJw!""o"‚"Ñ"Ò"î"ö"¢#¦##±#Ð#Ó#Þ#ß#â#=$@$E$I$f$p$½$òäòÖòÈòºò¬òžòò‚t‚f‚X‚J‚hõK BCJOJQJ^JaJh!ÎCJOJQJ^JaJß#ª$]% &x&Â&Ò&Ó&ã&¸(d)—)Ò)X*¸*÷*&+8,9,ðâââââÖÇÇ𸪪ªªªªž$„^„a$gd”y$ &Fdha$gdK˜$„dh^„a$gdK˜$„dà^„a$gd’g$„^„a$gd *E$ &Fdha$gdl¬$„dà^„a$gdÊU±½$¾$#%%²%¹%ì%í%À&Á&Â&Ò&Ó&Õ&Ö&×&â&ã&ä&òäÖäÈäºä¬äžn\H6ä#hÖÈh’g5CJOJQJ^JaJ&hÖÈh’g5>CJOJQJ^JaJ#hÖÈh *E5CJOJQJ^JaJ hÖÈh ECJOJQJ^JaJhåCJOJQJ^JaJ h E5>CJOJQJ^JaJh7ýCJOJQJ^JaJhz%CJOJQJ^JaJh ÝCJOJQJ^JaJhT"CJOJQJ^JaJhÄCJOJQJ^JaJh’gCJOJQJ^JaJh ?†CJOJQJ^JaJä&'|'&('()(1(2(b(d(œ(Ÿ(±(´(·(¸(ù() )&)>)?)@)òäòÖòȺò¬òžò¬‚tfXJCJOJQJ^JaJhŽÁCJOJQJ^JaJhåCJOJQJ^JaJh†rCJOJQJ^JaJ4ƒ4Î4Ô4ý4þ45555'5/5<5H5Z5[5½566ª6Ê6 ´CJOJQJ^JaJhAfCJOJQJ^JaJh¯\ÄCJOJQJ^JaJÌ?Í?Î?Ñ?à@â@ë@ì@AASATA‘A’A®A¸A
BABBB\BaByB„BžBªBôBõBöBòäòäÖÈÖäºäÖä¬äžä‚ttfXJhBhÛCJOJQJ^JaJhAfCJOJQJ^JaJhßnåCJOJQJ^JaJhîiÐCJOJQJ^JaJhQCJOJQJ^JaJhÞ'/CJOJQJ^JaJhJkCJOJQJ^JaJhÙpCJOJQJ^JaJh²xCJOJQJ^JaJh§9ßCJOJQJ^JaJhfyzCJOJQJ^JaJhTCJOJQJ^JaJh.& Fóäѯœ‹ƒ{yyy$a$gd,
**±$a$gdJ$a$$„^„a$gd;n$„„Ðdà^„„Ða$gd)ü$„„Ðdà^„„Ða$gd§1$„dà^„a$gdúAœ$„„Ðdà^„„Ða$gdT$„dà^„a$gdNRŒ$„^„a$gdBhÛöB÷BøBú íCJOJQJ^JaJhpACJOJQJ^JaJh†JCJOJQJ^JaJhucqCJOJQJ^JaJh$_¦CJOJQJ^JaJh<´CJOJQJ^JaJhßnåCJOJQJ^JaJhÞ'/CJOJQJ^JaJ hNRŒ5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&hNRŒhÞ'/5>*CJOJQJ^JaJhåCJOJQJ^JaJhNRŒCJOJQJ^JaJE$E%EÃEÄEDFEFFF[FFaFdFzF~FFFŒFFŽF‘ ´¦Ð¢ž¢’†ygy]OA9jh'áUhJh§25OJQJ^JhJhJ5OJQJ^JhJOJQJ^J"hæÂhæÂ5CJH*OJQJ^JhæÂ5CJOJQJ^Jh§2CJOJQJ^Jh9!çCJOJQJ^Jh\a íCJOJQJ^JaJh“/CJOJQJ^JaJ&h“/h“/5>CJOJQJ^JaJ’F”F•F—*
F˜FšF›FFžF¤F¥F¦F¨F©F¯F°F±F²F³F»FÅFÉFÎFÏFÐFÑFÒFüôüôüôüêäêäàêäêÕêäÌÆÌÆÌàü¸hJh§25OJQJ^J hi+ìCJh†,ìhi+ìCJhi+ì0JmHnHuhi+ì hi+ì0Jjhi+ì0JUjh'áUh'á–F—F™FšFœFF¦F§F¨F³F»FÏFÐFÑFÒFýýýýýôòýôêêýýâ$a$gd, ±$a$gd†,ì„üÿ„&#$9 0&P1h:pøyè°Ð/ °ÀN!°p"°p#p$p%°°Â°ÂĆœ@@ñÿ@NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH „@ò„ Heading 31$ ÆЄЄ0ýd¤ð¤x*$@&^„Ð`„0ý&5CJKHPJ\^JaJmH sH tHDA@òÿ¡DDefault Paragraph FontVióÿ³VTable Normal :Vö4Ö4Ö laö(kôÿÁ(No List2B@ò2 Body Text¤xB>@BTitle$a$5OJQJ\mH sH 4@4Header Æ9r .)@¢!.Page Number4 @24Footer Æ9r HC@BH$y¬Body Text Indent„h¤x^„h>R>d5 Footnote TextCJaJ@&¢a@d5Footnote ReferenceHÒ>|ÿÿÿÿ/0CLOÛg“]Ê S uËc/ ƒ×lÕ åš:Ösߪ] xÂÒÓ㸠d! —!Ò!X"¸"÷"$9$u(v(w(‡(ð)õ+'+T+U+þ,Â/â3¥7·7õ:ö:;=%=˜=D>E>d>~>>‘>“>”>–>—
>™>š>œ>>¦>§>¨>³>»>Ï>Ð>Ó>˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€0˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€0˜0€0˜0€0˜0€0˜0€0˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€0˜0€0˜0€€˜@0€€ ?????Bçøfëw!½$ä&@)u04u7¦9Ì?öBE’FÒF$'(),-.01245678:;<�uß#9,õB–FÒF%+/39=ÑF& B!•!tÿ•€ÿÿ¦Xiñ³§XiDð³¨XiÄð³©Xið³ªXi„ð³«XiÄﳬXi„ï³XiDï³®Xi„ñ³¯XiÄñ³°Xiò³±XiDò³²Xi„ò³³XiÄò³´Xió³µXiDó³¶Xi„ó³·XiÄó³¸Xiô³±±‘¾ææó ïï1%1%Ä%Ä%Ó> ¼¼–Æòúú $ $ ""ôô6%6%Ì%Ì%Ó> = €urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceType€=€urn:schemasmicrosoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceName€B*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€country-region€8€urn:schemas-**
microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City€9*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€¤Æ ±¼¾ÆÏ×æò+$&24UZ,3s z S]õ ÿ ½Åíï/1Ä%Ì%†'ˆ'z2|24&4=4D4g4n4u5|5a6h6Ž>>‘>‘>“>“>”>”>–>—>™>š>œ>>Ð>Ó> ƒâé$+&#)#‡'‡'))¬)®)ùÿ++ (+++,,ì,î,è.ê.Þ0ä0o2v2Ï6Ñ6Ž>>‘>‘>“>“>”>”>–>—>™>š>œ>>Æ>Î>Ð>Ó>333333333333333333/0CCÛÛBEggàåúý´µ GT““äå#$..çèéé12ÃÇâåèé%4]]/ 1 q r ¹ ¹ cc/ / w z õúFOƒƒåå&&ÖÖÚãïòsso‚ÑÒ¢¦ßßïï=@EIìíÁÑ) 2 !I!ï"ï"ð"ñ"9$:$‘$‘$%%ƒ'„'†'ˆ'¤''u(w(Š) )À)Ã)‚+‹+,ƒ,Î,Ô,ý,ý,þ,-Z-[-\-..Â/Â/Ã/Ä/ú/þ/00š0 0Î0Î0¦1©1ç1è1y2z2Ã2á3â3¥7Ì7Í7Î7Ñ7¸8¸8â8ë899j9j9ž:ª:õ:ö:÷:ø:V;e;«;Ä;===%=˜=˜=D>E>>>>‘>‘>“>“>”>”>–>— >™>š>œ>>¥>¨>²>³>Î>Ó>†'ˆ'‘>‘>“>“>”>”>–>—>™>š>œ>>Ð>Ó>Q"Í žÔˆÜÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿQ!ljàì‡ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿsh 0ݪ)ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÚŸ7„Áž©ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ~dC[X…œÂÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ„„0ýÆ^„„0ýo(()€ „鄘þÆé^„鄘þ‡hˆH.‚ „¹ „Lÿƹ ^„¹ „Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „‰ „˜þƉ ^„‰ „˜þ‡hˆH.€ „Y„˜þÆY^„Y„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „)„LÿÆ)^„)„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „ù„˜þÆù^„ù„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „É„˜þÆÉ^„É„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „™„LÿÆ™^„™„Lÿ‡hˆH. „Є˜þÆÐ^„Є˜þo(.€ „ „˜þÆ ^„ „˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „p„LÿÆp^„p„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „@„˜þÆ@^„@„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „à„LÿÆà^„à„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „°„˜þÆ°^„°„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „€„˜þÆ€^„€„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „P„LÿÆP^„P„Lÿ‡hˆH.„¿„þÆ¿^„¿„þo(()€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „Ø „LÿÆØ ^„Ø „Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „¨„˜þƨ^„¨„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „x„˜þÆx^„x„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „H„LÿÆH^„H„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „脘þÆè^„脘þ‡hˆH.‚ „¸„LÿƸ^„¸„Lÿ‡hˆH. „S„}ûÆS^„S„}ûo(()€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „Ø „LÿÆØ ^„Ø „Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „¨„˜þƨ^„¨„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „x„˜þÆx^„x„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „H„LÿÆH^„H„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „脘þÆè^„脘þ‡hˆH.‚ „¸„LÿƸ^„¸„Lÿ‡hˆH.„H„ þÆH^„H„ þo(()€ „ „˜þÆ ^„ „˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „p„LÿÆp^„p„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „@„˜þÆ@^„@„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „à„LÿÆà^„à„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „°„˜þÆ°^„°„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „€„˜þÆ€^„€„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „P„LÿÆP^„P„Lÿ‡hˆH.ÚŸ7Q!l~dC[sh 0Q"Í ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿžœùƒ\7 ŠL.a*" ½8tƒ4Aföu&6éhú Ý[í^• !‚xHî–@M#@à9£A‡Jæ@ §9\I(=Qu9zS¿UnàS $7PbnçE H §Z Í!º*!É/!Sn!Ã}!q."új"{#Î#K#«#¸,#Y#Ú3$Ïp$Çq$Þ\%q%z%Ä&c&4'a>'¶L's(‰w*hH+ûK+h-t3m.Ñ/Þ'/’M/ZV/×v/+I0FI0a1§1Æ&1ø&1»h1G2?2#5ch5½6v26ŒS6Ö9B9 )9N@:f:; <�6L<�c<�â~<�.&=œB=|Q=T=õ ?ð&? 8U?¾X?éb?Ïn?pAé:Bó?B}DBCCDI%D AD×|D *E·[EîsE1,FDDFªFFÓ^FÎxF<"GŸGGÝH½aHbIÂJ†JJÆBJ3rJ^DK=]K_LhhLÙMMyMYNE#NX(Nþ5N¡ZN´^N¿-O3AOwHO P" P*EPŸ(QsDQÃtQŠvQÒ|QfROLR8S™MSÉQShST,0T]T\UzU{VQ4VoV]WãuWæY5 ZÙ ZKZ \2]z:]J]n]—H^º^U_\™§2_`¤adaP5a? Baäb¡|b2Oc0dÚydaBe,DgÕJgtug£ j—jkjpEkJkÉQklˆmÒ"mÁ.mˆYm>/n;nÛLnqdnÓo!_oºpÙpeqqucq†r1r+Dr^nrÄyrŠDsisOt'tŸ9t“GtKuhu6puï=vÎqvÎ3w·Zw×dw†nw²xmy”y- y“+yK,yzBz!mz«vzfyz{S]{»{{˜|ß+|Š
}b/4y8y~Ƕ+qGD€|‚‚‚¯U‚XƒË"ƒÙ(ƒ¾<ƒÊpƒpsƒO_„¢† ?†Êb‡ÛˆÂCˆÂHˆX‰\Z‰µi‰b8ŠA>ŠaŠåiŠT ‹u ‹E#‹'‹ 3‹ÚNŒNRŒdŒQ#ŽY^ŽÂuŽéé8€n¥‘^‘Ee‘–’Ü“Ì“A“!n“A” <”IS”&U”³•l(•?–˜—½p—K˜«Z˜¢]˜=
™B™5™^šâ\šyvšxšp9›‘T›úAœÐ;1RF^F\aMž1ž¾8ž‡Lž!bŸâ* ¤> IM èg ö} ÿ¡]¡:)¡8¢¡5¢¦-£e@£~e£2Q¤¿s¤¡¥±¥$_¦m1§s§B©.ªÑ7ªcKªu«Ba« [¬l¬$y¬'®(®ƒ*®©W®€d®_|®~*¯[,¯!Q¯²¯ŠC°–°,±ÊU±,[±x*²Z²öz²©³£M³É4´<´jc´aµ–lµÜ5¶ÍV¶;·l.·‚\·†· ¸Ä¹d¹pºw;»µE»{»– ¼¸¼Þ!¼Â{¼[b¾¿Ê:¿õK¿^T¿òÀxÀÆTÀ?kÀÁŽÁ.8ÁGÁGÂæ™OŠm‰Aà !Äá&ÄX-Äz<į\Ä›Ä ÆÉÆäaÆž=ÇYÈzȹ ÈÖÈØ+ÊyÊËî#Ì s̪/ÍÍ9Ͳ`Í/Î!ÎÒ>Ï.^ÏáWÐ eÐîiкÑ>IÑsÑ'ÒðÒøOÒùlÒþÓ†;Ó‡Ô ÔiÔh7ÕÖ½:Ö¶ ך Ø0ØŠpØÛÚÅ^ÚÃbÚØ!ÛÃ6Û£dÛBhÛ!wÛŽ$ÜTuÜ Ýbݧ9ß'kßivà'á§Aá)Vá ká©Iâå/å:jåßnå9!ç&ç¡fèøyèî}èÝqé1ê/ê ë*6ëi+ì†,ìË?ìæAìé íÖ@í±Ií$zí¿îéPîï<@ïDWï×aïeï#uï\xï}ï:#ð=ð|Tð:_ðÓñë
ñ@]òóCóá9óšDóÝ}óWõ96õ‹öï+ö.yö‡÷÷é#÷d÷2ø§øZ(ø¹Mø®úÑEú³LúþûÈ4û¶Oû„]ûmü)ü+üƒ?ü6Sü| ü7ýý[þ@pÿÿ@€‡'‡'('ï‡'‡'Ò>0@ÿÿUnknownÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿGï:àAxÀ ÿTimes New Roman5€Symbol3&ÿ:àCxÀ ÿArialUArial Unicode MSArial5&ÿ:á[À)ÿTahomaA&‡ŸTrebuchet MS"1ˆðÐhQD6'[|6'ÔZ6‡@V ;5qV ;5q!ðpp´´4r>r>2ƒQðÜHXðÿ?äÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 2ÿÿ(THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTASJSJ þÿà…ŸòùOh«‘+'³Ù0ˆ˜ÌØäð 8DP \hpx€ä,THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTASJNormalSJ320Microsoft Office Word@îdÐ'@ô4t ¤Ð@RHÔà¡Ð@NÍbb§ÐV ;5þÿÕÍÕœ.“—+,ù®0hp€ˆ˜ ¨°¸ ÀõäAPHCqr>æ)THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTATitle !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:; <�=>þÿÿÿ@ABCDEFþÿÿÿHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[]^_`abcdeþÿÿÿghijklmþÿÿÿopqrstuþÿÿÿýÿÿÿxþÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀF@ö¡ib§Ðz€Data
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ?1TableÿÿÿÿGÕ<�WordDocumentÿÿÿÿ;|SummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿfDocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿnCom ÿÿÿÿ ÀFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8ô9²q
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the godowns belonging to the Food Corporation of India are exempt from levy of property tax by the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964?
Whether the levy of property tax on the basis of capital value, inclusive of the value of the land, is in accordance with Section 70(1)(b) of the Act?
Whether the demand notice dated 18.12.1986 for Rs.1,81,400-55 ps is illegal and arbitrary and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration and consequential permanent injunction?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Food Corporation of India
Gram Panchayat, Dowlaiswaram
M. Satyanarayana Murty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
