IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4379 OF 2008 BETWEEN Smt. Umrao Devi Bantia. …PETITIONER AND Secunderbad Cantonment Board. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: MR. B. CHANDRASEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR. DEPPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following: - ORDER: The facts and circumstances under which this revision arises is similar to CRP.No.5731 of 2008 disposed of today. 2. In this case also the premises belonging to the petitioner is subjected to revision of Annual Rental Value (ARV) under a notice of the respondent dated 13.02.2001 proposing to revise ARV from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.24,80,039/- on the ground that the premises in question is being put to commercial use by running function halls. The proposed enhancement of ARV is for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2003. The petitioner had filed objections dated 29.03.2001 and was given a notice of hearing dated 10.05.2001 and it appears that the assessment committee considered the objections of the petitioner and has resolved and reduced the proposed ARV to Rs.7,00,000/-. Based on the said revised ARV petitioner was given a demand notice dated 15.05.2002 demanding corresponding tax for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 at Rs.1,47,603/-. The said demand also included arrears of Rs.5,93,975/- for the period up to 31.03.2001. Aggrieved by the said demand appeal in C.M.A.No.38 of 2002 was preferred before the lower appellate Court, which has been dismissed under the impugned order dated 30.06.2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that various grounds were urged in support of the appeal as stated in the grounds of appeal and copy of the grounds of appeal is also appended and produced in this revision petition. Learned counsel states that though various contentions including the contention regarding retrospective collection of arrears of tax as shown in the demand notice was also questioned, the impugned order, however, does not show consideration of the various grounds urged. Learned counsel also points out that there is a civil suit pending with respect to partition of the property and various interim orders are passed thereon. The aspect of bifurcation of the property into commercial portion and residential portion also was urged. 4. The appellate Court under the impugned order, however, has noticed that the ARV though proposed to be revised drastically from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.24,00,000/- was ultimately revised only by Rs.7,00,000/- and the corresponding property tax is demanded. However, the lower appellate Court has not noticed that the revision of ARV and the corresponding tax can only be for the period mentioned in the notice i.e. 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2003 onwards and the revised ARV or the revised tax, prima facie, cannot be made applicable to the period prior to the aforesaid period. The said aspect though raised by the appellant specifically in the grounds appeal and said to have been urged, there is no consideration thereof before the appellate Court. The notice of the demand mentions arrears for the period up to 31.03.2001 but how this figure is arrived at and what is rate of tax adopted for arriving at those figures of arrears is not clear. 5. In view of these circumstances and after hearing both the learned counsel and perusing the records, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court has not applied its mind to various questions arising, which are, briefly, indicated above. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to set aside and is accordingly set aside. The lower appellate Court is directed to hear both sides and determine the appeal in accordance with law preferably by the end of December 2010. Both parties shall be at liberty to urge their contentions as permissible under law. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 20, 2010 DSK