IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Monday, the Fourteenth day of September Two Thousand and Nine Writ Petition No. 9493 of 2002 Between: M/s. Millennium Gardens, A partnership firm, rep. by its Partner, Mr.Khurshid Ali Khan, S/o. Late Khaja Moinuddin Khan, Aged 50 years, Occ:Business, R/o.8-2-332/1, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad …Petitioner AND Government of A.P. rep. by its Secterary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.9493 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioner is a firm, which owns 13,213 Sq.Mts in Thokatta Village. The property is known as Dream Land Cinema Hall. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Trimalgerry Mandal, Hyderabad District, purportedly, in exercise of powers under Section 4 of A.P. Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, 1963, (NALA) issued notice on 27.04.2002, demanding a sum of Rs.1,84,453/- (Rupees one lakh eighty four thousand four hundred and fifty three only) from petitioner firm, aggrieved by which, present writ petition is filed. Petitioner vehemently contends that without there being determination under Section 4 of NALA in accordance with Rule 4 of A.P. Non-Agricultural Land Assessment Rules, 1963 (NALA Rules), the Mandal Revenue Officer, Trimalgerry Mandal, Hyderabad District is not authorized to issue Form II – notice of demand. Mandal Revenue Officer, Trimalgerry Mandal, Hyderabad District filed counter affidavit. The allegation that there was no determination in accordance with NALA Rules is not specifically denied. It is further alleged that petitioner firm has put the entire extent of 13,213 Sq.Mts of land to commercial use and, therefore, demand notice under Section 4 of NALA was issued. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (TA). Both the counsel reiterated their position, as obtained in the pleadings. Section 4 of NALA reads as under. The Revenue Inspector shall determine the assessment payable by an owner of non-agricultural land after making such inquiry as may be laid down by the rules made under this Act and cause a notice of demand to be served on the owner specifying the amount of such assessment which shall be paid within thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand. A plain reading of Section 4, which is extracted above, would show that the Revenue Inspector shall have to first determine the assessment payable by the owner for non-agricultural use, after making enquiry, as contemplated under the NALA Rules. Rule 3 and 4 of NALA Rules are relevant and reads as under. 3. Power of Revenue Inspector: - In making an enquiry under Section 4 of the Act, the Revenue Inspector shall have power – (a) to issue a notice in Form I calling upon any person liable to pay assessment under the Act to furnish such information or produce such document or documents as are required for determining the assessment; and such person shall furnish such information as is required of him or produce or cause to be produced such document or documents on a date fixed by the Revenue Inspector. In default without sufficient cause to do so, the rate of assessment prescribed in the Schedule to Section 3 of the Act shall be levied on that land; and (b) to enter upon, inspect, measure the land and do such act or acts as are necessary for the determination of the area liable to the assessment under the Act. 4. Assessment: - After completing the enquiry, the Revenue Inspector shall determine the assessment payable by the owner or occupier of the land and prepare a demand in Form II appended to these rules and cause it to be served on such owner or occupier of the land in the manner hereinafter prescribed specifying clearly the amount and the date before which it shall be paid as laid down in Section 4 of the Act. While conducting enquiry under Section 4 of NALA, the Mandal Revenue Inspector shall have to issue notice of demand in Form I and determine the assessment. Then only, notice of demand under Form II can be issued under Rule 4 of NALA Rules. In this case, allegation made by petitioner that impugned notice in Form II was issued without enquiry under Rule 3 of NALA Rules remains uncontroverted. There is no such denial in the counter affidavit filed by Mandal Revenue Officer, Trimalgerry Mandal, Hyderabad District. Therefore, the impugned notice is illegal. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice in Form II issued under Section 4 of NALA on 27.04.2002 is set aside. It shall, however, be open to Mandal Revenue Inspector to conduct necessary enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of NALA read with Rules 3 and 4 of NALA Rules and take necessary action in the matter. This Court, while granting interim stay on 21.05.2002, directed petitioner to deposit half of the demanded amount. Learned counsel submits that the said amount is deposited. If that be so, the amount so deposited shall be adjusted towards non-agricultural tax payable by petitioner after determination by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Trimalgerry Mandal, Hyderabad District, as indicated hereinabove. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 14, 2009 Bvv