THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6696 of 2011 Dated:27.07.2011 Between: Smt.Pilla Venkata Subbamma. … Petitio And The Municipal Corporation of Guntur, And another. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6696 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is the absolute owner of an old house bearing D.No. 247 (296 square yards) situated at Vasantharayapuram in Guntur, which purchased from her vendor under registered sale deed bearing docum No.6702/1968 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Guntur. The property w assessed to annual property tax of Rs.1264/-. In 2006 she applied to the respondent for permission to construct RCC roof building in the said prope which was granted vide proceedings dated 07.06.2006. After completion construction of ground and first floors she let out the same for establishing and restaurant for which no objection was also issued by the respond Corporation vide proceedings dated 06.07.2007. The respondent Corpora assessed the half yearly property tax as Rs.2850/- under Assessm No.13029. Petitioner paid the property tax of Rs.2850/- for the half yearly pe from 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2008. The respondent Corporation issued spe notice for enhancement/imposition assessing the half yearly tax at Rs.57,6 on the assessed rental value of Rs.28,728/- and annual gross ratable valu Rs.2,28,822/-, which would be implemented from 01.04.2009. The petitio submitted revision petition before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporatio Guntur. Petitioner alleges that without considering the same, the Additio Commissioner issued the Endorsement in August 2010 stating that her app will be considered only after depositing the property tax as per endorsement. It is further case of the petitioner that after issuing the impug endorsement the respondent Corporation issued notice dated 14.12.2010 un Section 268 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 Act), demanding arrears of property tax and proposing coercive action un Sections 238, 269 and 278 of the Act in case of default. The petitioner t submitted another representation stating all the facts and requesting to reasonable property tax, in vain. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant petition challenging the Endorsement issued by the respondents in Aug 2010, and for a direction to respondents to consider the revision petiti submitted by her on 09.07.2010 and 10.01.2011. The matter was listed before us on 18.03.2011. Learned Stand Counsel for Guntur Municipal Corporation took notice and requested time getting instructions. Today when the matter is listed Counsel submits that appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending before the Commissioner, that same could not be taken up as the petitioner did not make half yearly paym of tax and that there are administrative instructions which justify the demand payment of halfyearly tax as a condition precedent for considering application/appeal under Section 221 of the Act. With the assistance of both the Counsel we have gone through Secti 220, 221 and 282 of the Act. The law contemplates the deposit of the amount (Section 282(2)(d) of the Act) as a condition precedent for availing remedy of appeal provided under Section 282(1) of the Act. Any such condi for consideration of complaint/revision under Section 221 of the Ac conspicuous by its absence. When the statute itself does not impose precondition, it is needless to mention that administrative instructions can bring in such condition into the redressal mechanism provided by the statu Therefore, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The Standing Counsel for Corporation submits that the complaint/app filed by the petitioner is likely to be disposed of in a short while. As complaint made by the petitioner is pending, we deem it proper to direct Commissioner, the second respondent herein, to dispose of the petition complaint/appeal/revision within a period of two weeks from today with insisting upon the payment of half yearly property tax as mentioned in impugned Endorsement or any other period. The Writ Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be order as to costs. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 27.07.2011 vs