IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2499 of 2008 Between: Vasamsetty Venkata Ramachandra Rao ..Petitioner AND Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, reptd. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada. .. Respondent ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in C.M.A.No.102 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Senior Judge, Vijayawada, dated 12-02-2008. The revision petitioner is an assessee for the property tax in respect of residential premises with Assessment No.26069A, Ward No.28/A, T.V. Rao street, Labbipet, Vijayawada. The property tax for the said building was Rs.3,490/-, which was attempted to be enhanced to Rs.8,724/- per half year after the enhancement of property tax to Rs.11,398/- per half year with effect from 01-04-2001 was questioned in revision. In C.M.A.No.1109 of 2002, even that enhancement was set aside, but during the pendency of C.M.A., the revision petitioner was paying tax at Rs.6107/- without any dues up to 30-09-2006. The Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, issued a Demand Notice dated 31-07-2006 enhancing the tax to Rs.10,764/- and when the landlord complained against the enhancement and the incorrectness of the measurements, an endorsement dated 17-02- 2007 was given fixing the half yearly tax at Rs.9,541/-. While serving the notice on 31-3-2007 on the brother-in-law of the landlord, the Municipal Corporation failed to consider the objections of the landlord submitted during the time of enquiry, and therefore, the assessment without following the statutory procedure was challenged in C.M.A.No.102 of 2007 as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and contrary to the statute. The landlord raised various grounds against the enhancement of property tax contending that the enhancement has no basis factually or legally and the land value was estimated only on surmises and conjectures. The landlord also contended that no notice of inspection of the premises was given before enhancing the tax and the actual land value was not taken into account. The enhancement is discriminatory and illegal. The Municipal Corporation opposed the request of the landlord in the appeal claiming to have faithfully followed the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), which are applicable to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. The impugned order was rendered considering the sustainability of the impugned notice by endorsement dated 17-02- 2007. The Appellate Court observed that the special notice was issued in tune with the orders of the Supreme Court and it was also noted that the objections and additional grounds raised by the landlord were stated to have been considered by the Municipal Corporation. The Appellate Court also observed that the Municipal Corporation stated that a personal hearing was given to the landlord and the objections about the wrong measurements, effective date of revision, arrears etc., were verified in the presence of the landlord without raising any dispute. The enhancement of tax to be effective from 1-4-2001 is thus observed by the Appellate Court to be in compliance with not only the directions of the Supreme Court, but also Sections 218 and 219 of the Statute. The Appellate Court opined that the allegations about the Municipal Corporation not following the statutory procedure, hence, cannot be upheld and dismissed the appeal. The assessee challenges the Appellate Court’s judgment in this revision contending that in view of the earlier success against enhancement of the property tax by notice dated 23-9-2001, the issuance of Demand Notice dated 31-07-2006 is contrary to the earlier orders of the Court. There was no proper enquiry before finalizing the assessment and measurements were wrongly noted. The objections were not properly considered and no opportunity was given. Sri M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Smt. G. Jhansi, learned standing counsel for the respondent, are heard. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is unsustainable in law or on fact? The learned counsel for the revision petitioner firstly stated that a procedural correction might have to be made by converting the Civil Revision Petition into Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, but without losing further time for correcting any technical deviation, interests of justice can be sufficiently safeguarded by hearing the Revision Petition itself under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is seen from the impugned endorsement dated 17-02- 2007 that the Municipal Corporation was acting upon the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the assessment and specifically mentioned that a personal hearing was given to the revision petitioner herein regarding the original objections as well as the objections raised even later. The contentions of the revision petitioner were specifically noted about the alleged incorrectness of the measurements and the effective date of revision, apart from non-compliance of the procedure under Sections 218 and 219 of the Act. The Additional Commissioner, who issued the endorsement, has specifically observed that the measurements and other occupational and structural details have been got verified in the presence of the revision petitioner and hence, there was no dispute. The Additional Commissioner observed that the same was explained earlier during the personal hearing and these allegations of fact made in the endorsement in question can be preferred as having been made by a person, who is interested in the cause only in his official capacity than the interested and self-serving claims of the revision petitioner to the contrary. The compliance with Sections 218 and 219 of the Act were stated to have been considered and decided by the Apex Court itself and the consequential demand made against the revision petitioner to pay the arrears of tax within 7 days, thus, does not appear on the face of it to be violation of any principles of natural justice or statutory prescriptions. The Appellate Court had gone in detail into the objections raised by the revision petitioner against the impugned endorsement and had preferred to accept the statements made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation in this regard about the adequacy of personal hearing, satisfactory answers to the objections raised and compliance with the statutory formalities, which conclusions do not appear on their face to be factually incorrect. The claim that the earlier enhancement of property tax by a special notice dated 31-07-2006 will have a bearing on the present notice cannot be sustained in the light of the Municipal Corporation being enabled to act further in pursuance of the directions of the Apex Court and in the absence of any factual proof of incorrectness of the order or absence of personal hearing, the restricted revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reverse the impugned order. The revision has to, therefore, fail. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27-08-2010 Ksn