IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11974 of 2008 Between: 1 Kollipara Apparao, S/o. Subbarao, R/o. Chandramoulinagar, 5th Line, Guntur. 2 Kollipara Rangavalli, W/o. Sriramamurthy, R/o. Chandramoulinagar, 5th Line, Guntur. 3 Kollipara Ajay Kumar, S/o. Sriramamurthy, R/o. Chandramoulinagar, 5th Line, Guntur. 4 Kollipara Prathibha Devi, D/o. Sriramamurthy, Rep by her mother Kollipara Rangavalli ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Rep by its Commissioner 2 The Revenue Officer, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur. 3 The Deputy Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, in the nature of a writ, declaring the action of the respondents in demanding the alleged arrears of property tax due with respect to Assessment No. 8089 for the period from 1993- 84 to 2008-09/1 and distress proceedings dated 09-6- 2008, as arbitrary, illegal, null, void and barred by time and consequently to set aside the same and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PEDDA BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.VENKATARATNAM The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondents in demanding the arrears of property tax due with respect to Assessment No. 8089 for the period from 1983-84 to 2008-09/1 and distress proceedings dated 9.6.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, null, void and barred by time and consequently to set aside the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioners are the owners of the property covered by Assessment No. 8089, situated at Amaravathi Road, Guntur. Earlier, the Guntur Municipal Corporation issued notice, dated 19.09.1995, under Sec. 268 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 demanding payment of Rs.4,74,369/- towards arrears of house tax for the period from 1976-77 to 1995-96/1, which was challenged by the petitioners before civil court of competent jurisdiction in OS No. 3365 of 1995, contending that the Corporation can collect tax only in respect of three years immediately prior to the date of demand. Ultimately, learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 30.11.2005 and the appeal being AS No. 348 of 2007 preferred therefrom, is pending. While so, on 09.06.2008 the respondents 2 and 3 served notice on the petitioners to the effect that the respondents have seized lorry bearing Registration No.TN.21.Q.1499 with ten cotton bales and demanded to pay an amount of Rs.32,29,142/- within seven days. The said sum represents a sum of Rs.13,79,643/- towards property tax for the period from 1983-84 to 2008-09/1 and the remaining amount of Rs.18,49,719/- represents interest thereon. Hence, this writ petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no further notice either for revision of tax or for collection thereof was issued to the petitioners and suddenly served the impugned notice, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. He further contends that the respondents have no authority under law to recover any tax for the period prior to three years from the date of issuance of the demand notice i.e. prior to 2005-2006. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that since the petitioners did not pay property tax at any time, the present notice had been issued and the petitioners be directed to deposit the amount, as contained in the notice. It is also contended that even the judgment in the above suit empowers the respondents to take steps for recovery of tax according to the statutory procedure. It is not in dispute that the earlier notice dated 19.09.1995 was set aside by the learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, in O.S. No. 336 of 1995 making an observation that the respondents herein are entitled to take steps for recovery of the tax, in accordance with the statutory procedure. It is also not in dispute that the present notice demands payment of tax for the period from 1983-84. Admittedly, the petitioners have availed remedy under the common law assailing the notice, dated 19.09.1995. Having regard to these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the lis in the present case cannot be resolved without comprehensive evidence, with reference to the claim made by the respondent Corporation, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the fact that the petitioners have already filed a suit and an observation is made that the respondents are entitled to take steps in accordance with law for recovery of the tax, we are of the view that the petitioners shall have to approach appropriate authority questioning the present demand notice. In that view of the matter, we give liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy open to them under common law. However, it is made clear that the petitioners are entitled to make representation for release of the lorry and the stocks and in such an event the respondents are directed to release the same on payment of property tax for the years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioners are also at liberty to question the impugned notice in accordance with law invoking all the pleas that are open to them including the ground of limitation. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J.​ _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. JUNE 12, 2008 Copy in three days //BO// MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}