Fazal Ahmed Khan, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC29 Nov 2017WP/39131/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a notice of demand dated 09-11-2017 issued by the respondent without following a previous court order requiring a personal hearing. The petitioners were directed to pay property tax based on the old valuation and the respondent was directed to follow the previous order within six weeks. Miscellaneous petitions stand disposed of as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice of demand, dated 09-11-2017, is set aside. Respondents directed to follow the directions in WP.No.5502 of 2015 and complete the exercise within six weeks of receipt of the order. P

Fazal Ahmed Khan, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti

¶2

Writ Petition No.39131 of 2017

¶3

Dated 29.11.2017

¶4

Order:

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

¶6

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit to pass an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring action of the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.3 while refusing to register the Sale Deed Dated 08.11.2017 presented by the Petitioner in respect of Portion of Plot Nos.58 and 59, admeasuring 204 sq.yds or 170.54 sq.mts forming part of Sy.No.74/4 of the Vyjayanthi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, situated at Mahendra Hills, East Marredpally, Secunderabad as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to receive and register the Sale Deed, Dated 08.11.2017 presented by the Petitioner pertaining to the above property thereby to release the same in accordance with law.”

¶7

(Reproduced verbatim)

¶8

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing

¶9

Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material available on record.

¶10

The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned notice of demand, dated 09-11-2017, was issued by respondent No.3 without following the directions of this Court in Order, dated 19.03.2015, in WP.No.5502 of 2015.

¶11

MSRM, J W.P.No.39131 of 2017 Date: 29-11-2017

¶12

¶13

In the aforesaid Order, this Court, while directing a notice of demand, which is similar to the one impugned in the present Writ Petition, to be kept in abeyance, directed that an opportunity of personal hearing be given to the petitioner therein after issuing a notice and a decision shall be taken thereafter. It was also observed therein that on failure of the petitioner to turn up for personal hearing, the notice impugned in the said Writ Petition will stand revived. However, according to the petitioner, the present notice of demand was issued without doing the exercise as stated in the aforesaid Order.

¶14

The learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that there is justification in making the demand, but however, since the demand was made without following the directions of this Court, this Writ Petition may be disposed of with appropriate directions.

¶15

Recording the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned notice of demand, dated 09-11-2017, of respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to follow the directions issued by this Court in WP.No.5502 of 2015 and complete the necessary exercise within six weeks from the date of

¶16

MSRM, J W.P.No.39131 of 2017 Date: 29-11-2017

¶17

¶18

receipt of a copy of this order In the meantime, the petitioner

¶19

shall pay the property tax as per the old valuation.

¶20

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

_____________________ (M.Seetharama Murti, J)

¶22

Dt: 29^th November, 2017

¶23

Note: CC in 3 days. (B/o) lur

Fazal Ahmed Khan, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fazal Ahmed Khan, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

S Sharada and Another, Vs Prls.Ecy., Energey Dept., Hyd., and 3 Others

Dasari Sharada, Warangal,and Anr. Vs the State of Ts.,Energy,Hyderabad,and 3 Otrs.

Silver Oak Bunglaw Owners Assn Vs Chairman Shri T.Chiranjeevululu and 6 Others

Mudimyal Kancha Vs Prl.,Secy., Forest Dept., and 3 Others

Kota Kalyani, Vs Prl.Secy., Ma., Andud Dept., Hyd., and Another

M Sindu Priya, Warangal Dist and 1 Other Vs the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and 2 Others