Disposed

Sri Mohd. Niyamatullah Khan, v. Prl.Secy., Ma. and Ud., Hyd., and Another

Telangana HC16 Feb 2022WP/37997/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging property tax demand notices, the High Court observed that a statutory remedy of revision exists under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. Noting the petitioner failed to deposit 50% of the taxed amount, the Court found no ground to interfere and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Final disposal of Writ Petition without interference or stay on the tax demands.

Sri Mohd. Niyamatullah Khan, Vs Prl.Secy., Ma. and Ud… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THE SIXTEENTH DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} ANO

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶7

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 37997 OF2014}

¶8

Between:

¶9

S.r^{N,4ohd. NiyamatullahKhan. S/o lbrahrmKhan, Ageo} -aboLrt^{64 vears Occlrpation'} Busrness. R/o H.No.1-4-256^{rY"f ollOro Svnii"it" Bank' sha;bathiCanalArea'} Bodhan Town,^{Nizamabad piitr.iit, "it"tinlrviJsrdrng in l'. No 22-2-7 45 ' 2""Floor'} "^PEnrroNER Vlli,Ei'rt*ljl^{Nioitnin eirii HvJerauao -} AND

¶10

1 The State of^{Telangana,rep by its Principal Secretary'MunicipalAdministration'} Secretariat,^HYderabad'

¶11

Z. ine Com.issioner,^{CityN'4unicipality'Bodhan' Nizamabad District'}

¶12

Petition Under^{Article226 of the Constitutiolof..r1oi1} 'tfit;'l''';; circumstances^{stated in tn" at?i-Ol'it tii"O therewith'the HighCourtmaybe pleased} to issue a Writ,^{order o. oir""iiol,-111oi"pa-rticularly a wriiin the natureof Writ of} Mandamus^declaringtn" ""iio,i^{oi tn" i;o Re.ponoentin issuing !"} -i!P1q19d Demand Notice^{aatea og-+-z"oi+] iir""ting the Petitioner lo payRs.2,72,6211-,} Rs.5,13,385,^{Rs.7,44,27g,u^i n" z,a5€rAiforD No 1-4t97'1-4-398'1'4-399' 1'} 4-405 and^{1-4-406, respectiv;lv ;ii;ituatedat Sharbathi CanalArea'Bodhan Town} despite^{pendencyof the r.i'litionsloUj"ctions before..the2"d Respondent'as} arbitrary,^{illegal, contraryt" tn"" p'i"tipf"t of NaturalJustice'G O' Ms Nos SS & 89} dated 05-03-201^{1 and Rule'-sg -[rO of Hyderabad trilunicipal Corporation} (Assessment on Property r"tii'Ltlrggb^{and violatesthe Article 14 and21 oI the} 3""i,"n:rii"" 2014 lot the "j^premises i^jJ^{Lv'ttitig N""."r-++si, aslji' tn" 1-4-396' impugned demand notices l-4-399'. 1'4-4osand dated 1-4-406'09-04-} i"#':^i"rv ,rr"iiiuaa^{at s"n"'L't'i i"nurArea'Bodhan Town' and consequentlv} direct the^{2" Respondent to o"tiJitio*"ollectingthe propertv tax contraryto Section} ilules 9'^{10 & 11 of the} 85, 87, 91^{and 365 of ,n" o F 'Ur'"itip"-li'"t nZt} '"uO^ith oii r'ii in""".ent^{on propertv- i5'jn'r"t'1990 without disposingoffthe} objectio ns.

¶13

LA. NO:^{1 OF2014(WPMP'NO:47534 OF 2014)}

¶14

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatin'th€circumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filedin support oi tn" p"iitlo'n' tne} !iSf-^{Courtmav be pleased to} suspend the^{impugned o"tano' ioi""sdated09:04-2014issued by the2nd} ResDondent^{hereindirecting,n" i"tiiio"",n"rein to pay Rs. 2.72,6211-,Rs 5'13,385,} A::#:;i; il^{n. z,ei.aisr-roi'd -r'ro r-+-ggz'r+'gga'r-+-ggg'1-4-405and} 1-4-406,^{respectivelyall situateJ aI Sharbathl CanalArea' BodhanTownpending} disposal^{of the above writ petition'}

¶15

Counsel^{for the Petitioner : SRI'S'ASHOK ANANDKU MAR-} ;;;;;;i io,^{irl" n"sponoentt'loi : GP FoR McPLADMN-&-URBANDEV} counset for^{the Respond"ntlio.i , snr.ru.pneveeNKUMAR (SC FOR MC, TG)} The Court^{madethe followingORDER}

¶16

¶17

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CIIANDRA SHARMA} AND

¶18

TIIE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEABIIINAND KI'MAR SHAVILI}

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.37997^{of 2014}

¶20

ORDER'^{p.rrne a,n'bte th.chiefJusticesotishchandtushdnno)}

¶21

The petitioner before^{this Court has filed this petition being} aggrieved by the action^{of the respondentsin demanding property} tax

¶22

On 10.12.2014,^{an order was passeddirecting the petitioner} to deposit 50% of^{the demanded amountHowevertill date' not a} single rupee has^{bcen deposited.Notonly this, underSection1Ol} of the Telangana^{MunicipalitiesAct, 2019, there is a remedy of} revision before the Commissioner,^{Therefore,this Courtdoes not} find any reason to interfere^{with the demand noticeThepetitioner} shall certainly be^free to^{takerecourseto the otherremedies} available under the^law.

¶23

With the a,foresaid,^{the writ} Petition^{stands disposed of'}

¶24

Pending miscellaneous^{applications,} if any, shall^stand

¶25

closed. There shall^{be no order as to costs'}

¶26

ASsrsrsADJ-rriJ#rtiREF

¶27

!^n'r

¶28

I/TRUE^COPY/I SECTION^OFFICER

¶29

'iE,ggffimffiffi;:""

¶30

SA\ .-b/

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610212022

-a:
fg srAr6
I
2\n
02

ORDER

WP.No.37997 of 2014

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

: ul
@
<br>v6

Sri Mohd. Niyamatullah Khan, v. Prl.Secy., Ma. and Ud., Hyd., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohd. Niyamatullah Khan, v. Prl.Secy., Ma. and Ud., Hyd., and Another

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

K.N.Chary Vs the Presiding Officer and Another

Jahangir Pasha Sk Vs The Chairman and another

Jayanagar Colony Welfare Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Madhusudan Reddy Anumula Vs The State of Telangana and 16 others

Bank of Baroda and another Vs M/s. Shri Avenues Private Limited and 2 others

Kothakonda Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana