IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.45 of 2009 DATE:24.01.2011 Between: C.Suleman …… Appellant And Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.45 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed by the appellant questioning order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in C.M.A. No.21 of 2009 filed by the appellant before the lower appellate Court under Section 654(6) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (in short, the Act). Questioning order of Commissioner of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation dated 17.02.2009 directing demolition of the structure in his possession on the ground that it is not fit for human dwelling purpose. 2) As against the appellate order passed by the Judge under Section 654(6) of the Act, no further appeal lies muchless to this Court. The appellant invoked Section 282 of the Act for filing this appeal. Section 282 reads as follows: “282. Appeals when and to whom to lie:- (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Judge. (2) But no such appeal shall be heard by the said judge, unless:- (a) it is brought within fifteen days after the accrual of the cause of complaint; (b) a complaint has previously been made to the Commissioner under Section 221 and such complaint has been disposed of; (c) a complaint has been made, by the person aggrieved within fifteen days after the first received notice of any amendment made in the assessment book under Section 225 and his complaint has been disposed of; (d) in the case of an appeal against tax, the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him with the Commissioner.” Section 282 of the Act deals with appeals relating to valuation and taxation and not demolition of structures. Thus, this appeal fails. 4) Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs. However, the structure in question shall not be demolished for a period of two weeks from today. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 24, 2011 ksh