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. 3854 of 2004 Between: Smt.Vedula Nagamani, w/o late Vedula Ramajogi Bheemeswara Chainulu, Occ:Properties, r/o H.No.46-18-13, Mandavaripeta, Dhondaparthy, Visakhapatnam-16. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.SOMESWARA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI N.RANGA REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF VISAKHAPATNAM The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3854 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in issuing distraint notice dated 02.02.2004 demanding payment of arrears of property tax of Rs.71,472/- from the years 1998-99 to 2003-04 along with interest 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 Standing counsel for the respondent submitted that, in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, the excess amount, if any, paid by the petitioner towards the impugned demand shall be refunded either by way of adjustment towards future tax or by other appropriate means. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 26.02.2009 v v [1] 2002(4) ALD 711 (DB)