IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4513 of 2004 Between: V. Kali Prasad, s/o V. Annapurnaiah, r/o 47-9-41/1, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent: SRI N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4513 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in issuing notice, dated 09.08.2003, and the consequential bill, dated 01.10.2003, demanding payment of arrears of property tax of Rs.18,956/- from the years 1993-94 to 2003-04, as illegal and barred by limitation. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by a Division Bench of this Court in V.K.Roy v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1]. A perusal of the said judgment shows, on interpretation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), in general, and Section 238 of the Act, in particular, the Division Bench held that the respondents are not entitled to recover any dues for a period beyond three years. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the demand for arrears beyond three years preceding the year 2003-04 is quashed. The respondent is given liberty to recover the arrears, which fall within the period of three years preceding the year 2003-04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in compliance with the conditional interim order passed by this Court, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid towards the disputed tax and that the excess amount, if any refundable to the petitioner, may be directed to be refunded. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if any part of the amount from out of the deposit made by the petitioner is found in excess of the tax due for the three years period, the same will be adjusted towards future demands. Having regard to these submissions of the learned counsel, the respondent is directed to refund the excess amount deposited by the petitioner by way of adjustment towards future tax or by any other appropriate means. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 26.02.2009 v v [1] 2002(4) ALD 711 (DB)