T VENKATARATNAM NAIDU Vs. H M T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner purchased a house bearing No. 3-5-997, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad under a registered sale deed dated 12-3-1981 from its owner and possessor called Prakashbabu. He filed an application for mutation of his name in the municipal records under Section 208 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. It is stated that inspite of repeated requests mutation was not effected in the name of the petitioner. A notice was issued in the name of one Shiva Prasad for recovery of the tax for houses bearing door Nos. 3-5-997 and 3-5-998, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, raising a demand of Rs. 17,266-50 and was served, on the petitioner seeking recovery of the amount. The petitioner challenged the correctness of the said notice in this writ petition.

(2.) Sri Vinyakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the petitioner filed an application for mutation of his name in the municipal records in respect of the house, the respondent ought to have mutated the name of the petitioner and raised demand of tax after duly assessing the property tax in respect of house No. 3-5-997. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not bound to pay the tax in demand which relates to his house and another house with which he is not concerned.

(3.) Sri Janardhana Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, submits that under Section 207 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the petitioner ought to have given notice within three months from the date of transfer. He further submits that the petitioner can as will file an appeal against the impugned demand and that therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.