IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7567 of 1999 Between: Kayala Mallikarjuna Babu ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Chilakaluripeta Municipallity, Guntur District and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY W.P.No.7567 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed questioning the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in disposing of the application dated 13-11-1995 filed by the petitioner for rectification of mistake in the records of the 1st respondent and the action of the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,239/-by demand notice towards the property tax under assessment No.1626 in D.No.20-50, by way of revision, thereby treating the property as vacant site from 01-10-1995 till the date of imposition, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing No.3/13, situated at Block No.20 of Chilakaluripeta Municipalilty. The property consists of a shed covered with GIC sheet roof in an extent of 109 ½ square yards, which was purchased by his father under registered a sale deed dated 14-06-1954. After purchasing the said property, his father made an application to the then competent authority i.e. Gram Panchayat to mutate the property in his name and the same was effected. In 1989, the property was leased out to one Boyapati Venkata Krishnaiah for four years. Later it was renewed in the year 1993 for another one year and again renewed for four years in 1994. On 24-01- 1992, his father executed a registered will bequeathing the said property in favour of the petitioner, and his father died on 27-09-1995. Thereafter, the petitioner became the owner of the property. After the death of his father, when the petitioner enquired with the 1st respondent in connection with the payment of property tax, it came to light that the property was standing in the name of tenant, Venkata Krishnaiah, under assessment No.10928 and the petitioner further came to know that Venkata Krishnaiah, in collusion with certain municipal staff, got the entries in the Municipal Records manipulated. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application, dated 13-11-1995 to the 2nd respondent, for rectification of mistake in the records. But the 2nd respondent has neither disposed of his application nor took any steps to rectify mistake in the records. 3. It is further stated that with regard to the said manipulation, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint in C.C.No.229 of 1997, on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate, Narsaraopet, against the staff concerned of 1st respondent-Municipality and Venkata Krishnaiah. While things stood thus, in January, 1996, the petitioner received a special notice dated 31- 01-1996 from the 1st respondent under Sections 4, 10 and 11 of the Schedule 11 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, proposing to pay the tax. Aggrieved by the same, he filed objections, dated 15-02-1996 stating that his father is paying property tax since 1955. But the 2nd respondent till today did not pass any orders on the objections raised by him. Therefore, his grievance is that though he filed an application to verify the records and rectify the mistake and filed objections to the demand notice, dated 31-01-1996, the 2nd respondent did not take any action. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 5. Both the reliefs as prayed in the writ petition are different. As far as the tax liability is concerned, it is not substantiated that the petitioner has taken any remedy by filing a revision/appeal and no writ petition can be entertained for that relief. As far as the inaction on the part of the respondents authorities in not disposing of the application of the petitioner dated 13-11-1995 is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to the remedies available to him under Law. Further, it is not clear as to whether his application, if any, is still pending before the respondents-Corporation or not. 6. Therefore, we direct the respondents to consider the application, in case, any such application was received and the same is pending, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in any case, not late than three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH ___________________________ 13th August 2009 JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY Kvr