Remanded

Kolloju Hemalatha v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Mar 2017WP/9717/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the seizure of the petitioner's shop for alleged municipal tax arrears, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the Municipality with an attached payment towards the demand. Fresh consideration was directed to the Municipality.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to make a detailed representation to the Municipality; Rs. 50,000 payment directed; coercive steps stayed.

Kolloju Hemalatha Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.9717 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The allegation of the petitioner is that her shop has been seized for alleged non-payment of municipal tax.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that premises bearing No.5-5-1/8/1 (old), Old Collectorate, Prakasham Bazar, Nalgonda District, was purchased by the petitioner in an open auction in the year 2011; thereafter, on account of certain additions made, door number of the said premises has been changed to 5-5-1/14; the petitioner had already paid municipal tax and there are no arrears; respondent No.2 – Municipality, without issuing any notice, and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, seized her shop on 16.03.2017; though the petitioner offered to pay tax of Rs.82,335/-, respondent No.2 – Municipality refused to accept the same, which she paid tax through mee-seva on 22.03.2016; and, now as there is a further demand of Rs.4,50,000/- by respondent No.2 – Municipality, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶6

Having considered the submissions and,

¶7

particularly, the assertion of the petitioner that the subject property being one and the same, and there are no arrears with respect to the said property, interest of

¶8

¶9

justice would be served if liberty is given to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to respondent No.2 – Municipality, setting out the factual details, within a period of two weeks from today, which shall be considered by respondent No.2 – Municipality, pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within four weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with the representation. Till final orders are passed by respondent No.2 – Municipality, no coercive steps shall be taken.

¶10

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶12

closed. No order as to costs.

¶13

______________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶14

Date:20.03.2017 usd

Kolloju Hemalatha v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolloju Hemalatha v. State of Telangana

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

Maniklal Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana, Rep., .by its Secretary

Kosaraju Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal

Y.Srinivas Reddy Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt.J.Ramalakshmamma, Vs .The State of A.P.

N.Eswara Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

K. Krishna Vs The Government of A.P.