IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.23 OF 2002 Between: Purandas Ranchoddas & sons ..... Appellant And The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad Division …Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.23 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in M.A.No.105 of 2001, on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 24.09.2002. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the appellant was aggrieved by the Assessment Letter No. 211/TC1/MCH/A9/2001, dated 29.05.2001, in respect of the premises bearing Municipal No.22-6-787, Mir Chowk, Hyderabad. The complaint was against enhancement of yearly property tax, with effect from 01.04.2000, from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.1,37,169/-. The special notice was served on the appellant and in spite of his objections and after hearing him, the respondent corporation confirmed the Monthly Rental Value at Rs.11/- per square foot. The appellant filed M.A.No.105 of 2001 challenging the same and in the impugned judgment, the learned Chief Judge noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had no serious objection if the Court fixes a reasonable Monthly Rental Value taking into consideration the Monthly Rental Value in the vicinity and the area and nature of the property used for non-residential purposes. The proposal with a view to put an end to the litigation was found by the learned Chief Judge to be not unreasonable and taking into consideration the locality and utility of the schedule property, the Chief Judge felt that it would meet the ends of justice if the respondent corporation is directed to demand the tax on a Monthly Rental Value of Rs.3/- per square foot of the carpet area. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judge set aside the demand notice and directed the collection of tax on the basis of a Monthly Rental Value of Rs.3/- per square foot of the carpet area with effect from 01.04.2001, but not from 01.04.2000 since the final order was passed only on 29.05.2001. The learned Chief Judge also directed that the excess payment made by the appellant shall be adjusted towards future taxes. 3. The appellant contends in this appeal that the impugned judgment was illegal as it was without perusing the assessment order and as it failed to note that there could not be a reassessment within three years. The appellant also contended that the procedure for assessment was not followed and the assessment was arbitrary. The appellant further contended that substantial questions of law arise as to whether the respondent corporation could have ignored the relevant factors like the location, utility, etc., of the property and whether the respondent corporation could have undertaken a revision within three years from the last revision. 4. Heard Sri K.K. Waghray, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation. 5. The point for consideration is whether there are any substantial questions of law involved in the Second Appeal and whether the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be interfered with for that reason? 6. While no substantial questions of law were formulated while admitting the Second Appeal, the questions raised in the grounds of appeal and the question framed as above are, therefore, being considered. 7. In the objections to the demand notice, the appellant firstly contended that the assessment, levy and collection of property tax in respect of the subject premises were the subject of M.A.No.12 of 2001 by the date of the demand notice and hence, the demand notice is untenable. However, no provision or principle of law has been brought to notice by which any challenge to an earlier assessment deprives the corporation of the jurisdiction for the exercise of its statutory right to have a fresh assessment of the property for purpose of imposition of property tax. The objections themselves mention that the premises were leased out for an alleged rent of Rs.1,500/- each inclusive of Rs.600/- each payable towards amenities and facilities. The area as assessed by the respondent corporation was also disputed and the prevailing rent in the locality was stated to be not even Rs.2/- per square foot. However, no material or documents have been produced to probablise the rate of rent at which the present lessees are paying in order to show the prevailing rates of rent in the locality at the relevant time. There is also no material to substantiate the objection that the assessment was based on the plinth area but not the carpet area or to show that the rental value taken into consideration by the respondent corporation included the value of the amenities and facilities also apart from the rent for the physical extent of the property. Though a number of objections were, thus, taken against the demand notice, the same do not appear to be substantiated by any material. Merely because the enhancement in tax was many times more than the earlier tax, it cannot be considered ex facie illegal. In the special notice, the respondent corporation has detailed the reasons forming the basis for the assessment and specifically stated that the rental values indicated in the self-assessment returns of other property owners of that area and the data of rental values gathered from various sources formed the basis for the assessment of tax. In the assessment order, dated 29.05.2001, after considering the objections raised by the appellant, the respondent corporation specifically found that the assessment was reasonably based on a very reasonable rental value prevailing in the area. 8. Irrespective of the other considerations, the impugned judgment was obviously rendered on the positive request made by the counsel for the appellant, obviously on instructions, to fix a reasonable Monthly Rental Value taking into consideration the locality and utility of the property. It was on that basis that the learned Chief Judge fixed the Monthly Rental Value of Rs.3/- per square foot of the carpet area and also granted relief to the appellant confining the liability to pay the enhanced tax for the period from 01.04.2001 and not 01.04.2000. The excess payments made earlier were also directed to be adjusted towards the future taxes and such a judgment passed at the request and with the consent of the counsel for the appellant, obviously on instructions and with the necessary authority, cannot be interfered with on any other considerations. There is absolutely no material on record to show that the procedural safeguards provided by the relevant statute were not followed in making the assessment or that the assessment was made within any prohibited period from an earlier assessment. 9. Under the circumstances, it cannot be considered that any relevant factors were ignored or any assessment was prohibited and the appeal has to, therefore, fail. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10th November, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.23 OF 2002 November 10, 2010. KL