THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No.523 of 2004 ORDER: This appeal is filed against the order dated 26.08.2004 in an unnumbered I.A. in T.A.No.413 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The above appeal was filed questioning the enhancement of tax at Rs.880/- for half year, after the revision filed before the Commissioner was dismissed. It appears, that an order was passed on 03.11.2003 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in T.A.No.413 of 2001 whereunder the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant has filed an unnumbered I.A. to set aside the judgment in appeal as it was ex parte judgment and that application was also rejected. Though the grounds of appeal show that the appeal is preferred against the rejection order in an unnumbered I.A, but the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in substance the appellant is challenging the very judgment of the lower appellate Court in T.A.No.413 of 2001 and therefore, this appeal may be treated as an appeal against the original judgment in T.A.No.413 of 2001. In order to avoid further delay in the matter and taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is treated as an appeal against the judgment in T.A.No.413 of 2001. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Municipality has not properly followed the procedure while fixing the tax and that there are no alterations or new constructions to the building and there are also no developments and therefore, the enhancement is arbitrary. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the Municipality contended that the areas are divided into several zones as per the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the tax is assessed on the basis of the plinth area without reference to the nature of the constructions and therefore, there is no illegality in fixation of the tax. It is observed by the lower appellate Court that at the time of preferring the appeal, the mandatory provisions under Section 282 (2) (d) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act are not complied with and therefore, there is no proper filing of the appeal and found that the appeal is liable to be dismissed since it is not maintainable. Further more, the lower appellate Court found that the premises was inspected by the authorities of the respondent and there is nothing to show that the plinth area arrived at by the respondent is wrong and that the application of the zonal regulations is not proper. In view of the above circumstances, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the appeal. The order of the lower appellate Court clearly discloses the merits of the claim. In view of the above circumstances, I find no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Dt. 24.06.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No. 523 of 2004 Dt. 24.06.2011