N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL Nos. 9 OF 2002 & 4 OF 2003 Between: Mrs. Urmila ..... Appellant And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, MCH Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. …Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL Nos. 9 OF 2002 & 4 OF 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: C.M.S.A.No.9 of 2002 is directed against the judgment and decree in M.A.No.339 of 1997, on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and C.M.S.A.No.4 of 2003 is directed against the judgment and decree in M.A.No.340 of 1997, on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 14.06.2001. 2. As parties to both the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals are the same and the challenge is in respect of assessment in respect of portions of the same building, both the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals are heard and decided together. 3. The appellant contended that after purchasing building No. 8-2-684/B/P/24 & 25, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, he dismantled the existing structures and constructed the present building as per the sanctioned plan in 1993. The Municipal Authorities fixed the annual property tax at Rs.1,730/- on the basis of the annual rental value of Rs.5,340/-. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad issued a notice in January, 1997, enhancing the tax abnormally and without considering the objections raised by the appellant. Demand notices were issued on 29.08.1997 splitting the premises into two assessments and assessing the annual rental value of the premises in House No.8- 2-684/B/P/24 & 25 at Rs.18,000/- and the consequential tax at Rs.4,860/- per annum and assessing the annual rental value for House No.8-2-684/B/P/24 & 25/1 at Rs.13,200/- and the consequential tax at Rs.3,564/- per annum. 4. The appellant claimed that she filed appeals in M.A.Nos.339 and 340 of 1997 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, against the said enhancement of property tax respectively. But the said appeals were dismissed by the impugned judgments dated 14.06.2001. 5. In the impugned judgments, the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, referred to the allegation that the enhancement of tax was without inspection of the premises in question and without considering the objections raised by the appellant. The learned Chief Judge observed that the carpet area of the respective premises is 1700 and 1400 square feet respectively and the premises is situated in the posh locality of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The learned Chief Judge also noted that the corporation assessed the tax @ Rs.0.88 Ps./Rs.0.78 Ps. per square feet and the monthly rental value at Rs.1,500/Rs.1,100/- and the annual rental value at Rs.18,000/Rs.13,200/-. The respective assessments were considered by the learned Chief Judge to be reasonable leading to the dismissal of the appeals. 6. In these Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals, the appellant contended that the learned Chief Judge did not consider the appeals in the correct perspective and failed to consider that the building was not let out to any tenant and is in the occupation of the appellant herself. The appellant also contended that for bigger buildings in the same locality, the tax assessed was much less and the appellant also claimed that the inspection report prepared by the corporation does not reflect true facts. The objection raised by the appellant was claimed to have not been considered and the assessment is, therefore, said to be reversed. 7. Heard Sri K. Vijay Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned standing counsel for the respondent. 8. The point that arises for consideration in both the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals is whether there is any cause for interference with the assessment made by the corporation on the ground of any unreasonableness or violation of principles of natural justice. 9. The claim that the enhancement of tax was taken recourse to without inspecting the premises in question was not accepted by the learned Chief Judge and the very grounds of appeal referred to the inspection report prepared by the corporation in this regard which pre-supposes a physical inspection of the premises, which alone can lead to the preparation of an inspection report. The claim in the grounds of appeal that the inspection report does not reflect the true facts cannot be equated to a claim of absence of inspection itself and in the absence of any positive material, it will be difficult to disturb the finding of fact by the learned Chief Judge in this regard. The carpet area of the premises being 1400 and 1700 square feet respectively is not in dispute and though the premises is occupied by the owner herself, it cannot be in doubt that assessment of property tax on the annual rental value cannot be altogether negatived on the ground of occupation by the owner. The annual rental value is taken as the reasonable basis for the assessment of property tax even in respect of self-occupation and assessment of the tax at Rs.0.78 Ps. or Rs.0.88 Ps. per square feet is not shown to be divorced from the prevailing rental values in the locality at the relevant time nor did the appellant place any material before the learned Chief Judge or this Court to show that similar buildings in the same locality which are larger in area were assessed to lesser tax as contended in the grounds of appeal. The objections raised by the appellant against the assessment were not shown to contain any other substantial grounds warranting interference at the Second Appeal level and in the circumstances, both the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals have to fail. 10. Accordingly, both the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals are dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th October, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL Nos. 9 OF 2002 & 4 OF 2003 October 28, 2010. KL