IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF LANDHRA PRADESH :: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH [19TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO LTHOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2002 Between: The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad Division … Appellant And: Binay Venkatachalam … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.08.1997 passed in M.A.No.92 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein, the appeal filed by the respondent herein assailing the demand notice dated 20.02.1995 issued by the appellant-Corporation directing payment of arrears of property tax to a tune of Rs.8,12,280.96, was disposed of by setting aside the impugned notice dated 20.02.1995 and remitted the matter back to the Corporation for fresh disposal according to law. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- Corporation. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. It is not disputed that the respondent herein is the owner of the residential portions bearing Nos.4-1-826/6 and 4-1-826/13, Abids, Hyderabad. The building was assessed to property tax of Rs.2,150/-. The appellant-Corporation issued a notice dated 20.02.1995 demanding payment of arrears of property tax to a tune of Rs.8,12,280.96 in respect of the premises bearing Nos.4-1- 286/11, 12 & 13 situated in Abids, Hyderabad for the period from 1983-84 to 1994-95. The respondent herein would contend that he is the owner of the building bearing No.4-1-826/6 and 13 only and he is not concerned with the building bearing Nos.4-1-826/11 and 12 or 4-1-826/7 & 8. According to the respondent, the annual rental value was fixed at Rs.18,000/- and the monthly rental value for the vacant site was fixed at Rs.4,215/- and the tax was accordingly paid up to 1990. He contended that the tax was increased by six times without giving any opportunity to him to file objections for the proposed enhancement. He also contended that the representation dated 02.03.1995 submitted by him was not enquired into. Learned Chief Judge directed the appellant- Corporation to consider the objections filed by the respondent herein after giving him an opportunity and pass a reasoned order. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the appellant-Corporation for fresh disposal according to law. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Chief Judge, as the respondent herein is entitled for an opportunity of hearing and the objections raised by him for the proposed enhancement are required to be considered and disposed of before making any enhancement. The impugned judgment remitting the matter back to the appellant-Corporation for fresh disposal, does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 19.02.2010 bss