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.5731 OF 2008 BETWEEN Mohammed Ibrahim Abrar. …PETITIONER AND Secunderbad Cantonment Board. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: MR. MOHAMMED IMRAN KHAM Counsel for the Respondent: MR. B. CHANDRASEN REDDY The Court made the following: - ORDER: This revision is directed against the order of the appellate Court i.e. I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad dated 30.06.2008 in CMA.No.47 of 2002. 2. The said appeal was filed by the petitioner against the revision of Annual Rental Value (ARV) relating to property, allegedly, belonging to him by way of gift from the original owner – Smt. Sughra Begum. The petitioner received notice of revision of assessment dated 13.02.2001 proposing to revise the ARV for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2003 from the existing ARV of Rs.3,60,000/- to the proposed ARV of Rs.27,37,577/- on the ground that the said Bungalow No.150, Balamrai is being used for commercial use for running function hall. The petitioner filed objections to the said notice pointing out that the said proposed ARV is not justified for various reasons; including the complaint of the petitioner that he was not given any opportunity as required under Section 68 (3) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (for short the ‘Act’). However, it is not in dispute that taking note of his objections the proposed ARV was reduced from Rs.27,37,577/- to Rs.6,00,000/- and the corresponding tax imposed on the said revised ARV was Rs.73,800/-. The petitioner however, received a bill dated 17.01.2002 from the respondents seeking difference of amount of Rs.1,18,080/- for the period September 2000 to March 2002. Petitioner also received a notice of demand for an aggregate amount of Rs.4,47,800/- which comprises of arrears of Rs.3,54,320/- up to 31.03.2001 and current demand of Rs.93,480/- for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 84 of the Act. Various contentions were raised before the appellate authority by filing documents. The appeal, however, was dismissed, hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the lower appellate Court under the impugned order has referred to documents filed by the petitioner as Exs.A1 to A8, the conclusions drawn thereon are, however, erroneous inasmuch as none of the said documents are properly appreciated or discussed. Learned counsel also contents that the lower appellate Court has even doubted the locus standi of the appellant/petitioner herein on the ground that the property stands in the name of Smt. Sughara Begum whereas the appeal and this revision was preferred by petitioner - Mohammed Ibrahim Abrar. Learned counsel also states that the specific issue with regard to retrospective recovery of tax based on the revised ARV is clearly impermissible but the same is not considered by the lower appellate Court and as such the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. 4. I have seen the impugned order of the lower appellate Court. It is true that there is no discussion on the basis of documents and the conclusion of lack of locus standi is straight away arrived at without noticing that the objections to the notice were also filed by the petitioner himself. It is also stated that in para 1 of the objections that the premises is presently owned and possessed by the petitioner having derived the same under a bequest from Smt. Sughra Begum – the original owner. The petitioner being the occupier irrespective of the controversy, as understood, by the lower appellate Court, and for the purpose of tax, he alone is liable and responsible. Even otherwise the learned counsel has pointed out from the material papers, the proceedings of the respondent board itself where petitioner is recognized by the board as the owner of the said property and the property data available with the respondent board itself mentions and records that the petitioner is the owner. The conclusion of the lower appellate Court doubting the locus standi of the petitioner is, therefore, clearly not based on any material and is, in fact, contrary to the material available on record. More importantly, the present proceedings is not the proceedings concerning the investigation into title to the property and as such the said finding in para 7 is clearly uncalled for and is liable to be set aside. 5. So far as the other aspects regarding impugned demand is concerned, it appears, prima facie, that the notice of the revision of ARV was for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2003, as is evident from the notice of the board dated 13.02.2001. The fixation of ARV after considering objections, therefore, can only be with reference to the aforesaid period and not anterior thereto. Consequently, the tax imposed on the basis of revised ARV also has to be for the aforesaid relevant period and not for the anterior period. The impugned demand served on the petitioner dated 02.05.2002, which is challenged in the appeal shows that arrears up to 31.03.2001 to the tune of Rs.3,54,320/- is demanded. The aforesaid figure does not tally with the revised ARV and the corresponding tax for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2003. The notice of 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 is not clear. The petitioner has raised this issue specifically but there is no discussion on this aspect under the impugned order of the lower appellate Court. 6. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit CMA.No.47 of 2002 to the lower appellate Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above. The appellant as well as the respondent shall be at liberty to agitate all available pleas in accordance with law and the lower appellate Court shall consider and pass appropriate order thereon. The petitioner has already deposited the entire disputed tax pending the appeal and the said deposit shall abide by the result of the appeal. The lower appellate Court shall determine the appeal afresh preferably before the end of December 2010. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 20, 2010 DSK