[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Boddu Tlrupathamma, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 July, 2025
APHC010370862020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 24695/2020
Between:
1. BODDU TLRUPATHAMMA,, W/O NAGABHUSHANAM, AGED 84
YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 3-29-1714A, KRISHNA NAGAR II LANE,
GUNTUR - 522 006
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DIST,
2. GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS
COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased topleased to issue a direction, order or writ more particularly in the
nature of writ of Certiorari declaring the assessment of vacant land tax by the
2nd respondent demanding Rs.10,87,683/- towards arrears of Vacant land tax
for the years 2009-2021 including penalty of Rs.3,89,1551- as depicted in the
official website of the Guntur Municipal corporation in respect of 1005.07
Sq.yds of vacant land equivalent to 840.37 Sq. Mts owned by the petitioner
bearing assessment no. 1021178278 situated in ward no.33 of Guntur
Municipal Corporation for the first time for the years 2009 2012 and thereafter
as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the mandatory
2
provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and violative of articles 14,21 and
300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not
to collect any vacant land tax in respect of the subject property from the
petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to direct the 2nd respondent not to collect any vacant land tax in
respect of 1005.07 Sq.yds equivalent to 840.37 Sq. Mts bearing assessment
no. 1021178278 situated in ward no.33 of Guntur Municipal Corporation from
the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M CHALAPATI RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)
2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
3The Court made the following Order:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
aggrieved by the levy of tax of vacant land at 19-7-272/266, Revenue Ward
No.33, Guntur, whereby the 2nd respondent has raised a demand for payment
of an amount of Rs.10,87,683/- as tax due towards vacant land from the year
2009-2010 to 2020-2021.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd
respondent could not have levied tax without following the procedure as
contemplated under Section 198 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. It is
submitted that the 2nd respondent has raised the demand for payment of tax
for the first time on 08.01.2020. The said proceeding is filed along with the
counter of the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that Section 197 to 199, 212
to 226 relate to the method of preparation and assessment of tax which is to
be followed by the Municipal Corporations across the State.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent did not
publish a notice in the Gazette or in any local newspaper with regard to the
proposed levy of tax on any new vacant land. Objections are to be called for
with regard to the proposed levy and the Corporation after considering the
objections shall determine the levy of tax. The resolution of the Corporation
would have to specify the date on which, the date from which and the period
of levy if any, for which, such tax shall be levied. It is submitted that no such
procedure was followed by the 2nd respondent while issuing the impugned
proceedings.
4
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that a
detailed counter is submitted by the respondent Corporation and it is
categorically stated that the 2nd respondent has power to levy vacant land tax
after introduction of Levy and Assessment of Property Tax Rules, 2020.
5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that Rule 7 empowers
the Corporation to levy the vacant land tax at 0.20% of the estimated
guideline value of the land in case of Municipalities and 0.50% in case of
Municipal Corporations. It is also submitted that the petitioner has an
alternative and effective remedy of filing a revision before the concerned
authority. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to approach the
competent authority and file a revision; as such, the present writ petition is not
maintainable.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban
Development for 1st respondent as well as learned Standing Counsel for the
2nd respondent.
7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent, the impugned
proceeding dated 08.01.2020 is issued without following the procedure
contemplated under Section 198 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1955. The
procedure would mandate the Commissioner to publish the notice in the A.P.
Gazette and also in a local newspaper and fix a reasonable time for calling for
objections from the proposed assessee for levy of the tax. After receipt of
5
objections, resolution would have to be passed by the Corporation and
thereafter a demand for tax ought to have been made. As the 2nd respondent
neither followed the procedure as contemplated under law nor had issued
show cause notice to the petitioner for assessing tax from the year 2009
onwards by raising a demand in the year 2020, calling upon the petitioner to
pay the allegedly assessed tax from the year 2009 onwards cannot sustain
the scrutiny of law.
8. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that,
the impugned proceedings in the Writ Petition deserves to be set aside,
leaving it open for the 2nd respondent to follow the procedure as contemplated
under law for raising any demand on the site.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned
proceedings is hereby set aside. No costs.
10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Date : 14.07.2025
BMS
[ad_2]
Source link