IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22537 of 2000 Between: The Agricultural Market Committee rep by its Secretary Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Department of Municipal Administration rep by its Secretary Secretariat Building, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner Anakapalli Municipality Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District .....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 Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the notice Lr. Roc. No. 5201/96/A1, dated 30/12/1999 issued by the 2nd Respondent as illegal and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.22537 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner is an Agricultural Market Committee at Anakapalle. It acquired an extent of Acs.30.37 cents of land, for the purpose of establishing a Market Yard. The Commissioner, Anakapalle Municipality, the second respondent, addressed a letter, dated 30.12.1999, requesting the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,700/-, towards ‘Vacant Land Tax’, levied for the three blocks of half year. The petitioner challenges the same, on the ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’), was not followed. It is stated that before any tax is levied, for the first time, a decision under Section 81 of the Act has to be taken and the purport thereof has to be published under Section 83 of the Act. Though nearly 8 years have elapsed, the respondents have not filed counter-affidavit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. Chapter I of Part IV of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed, while levying the tax, of different categories. Section 81 enlists the categories of tax, which can be levied by a municipality. Section 83 mandates that whenever tax is levied for the first time on any item or any existing rate is modified, the Commissioner of the Municipality shall publish a notification in the prescribed manner specifying the rate at which and the date from which the levy is to be imposed. The allegation of the petitioner that such a procedure was not followed, before the impugned letter was addressed, remains un-rebutted. When in clear terms Section 83 of the Act directs that a fresh levy or a revised levy can be made, only on the strength of a notification, the impugned letter cannot be sustained in law. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned letter, dated 30.12.1999, is set aside. It shall be open to the respondents to levy tax by following the procedure prescribed under chapter I of Part IV of the Act. The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, in pursuance of the interim order, dated 21.11.2000. It is directed that in case, no fresh notice is served upon the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the second respondent shall be liable to refund the same. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Dt.27.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ