NAZNEEN P. BAPOOJI Vs. CEO, SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S. Malla Rao, Counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No.10050 of 2012, Sri Krishna Koundinya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K.Srikanth, counsel for petitioners in W.P.Nos.23691,23692,23693 of 2012, Sri Sunil Ganu, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri M.Papa Reddy, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.10359 of 2012, Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.34562 of 2012 and Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents/ Secunderabad Cantonment Board and it's Chief Executive Officer.

(2.) All the petitioners in these writ petitions own properties within the jurisdiction of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board (for short "the Board") constituted under the erstwhile Cantonments Act 1924 ( for short "the 1924 Act" ) which was later repealed and replaced by the Cantonments Act, 2006( for short "the 2006 Act"). The grievance in all these writ petitions is against the action of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board purporting to Triennially Revise for the period from 1-4-2009 to 31-3-2012, the property tax assessment in respect of the properties of the petitioners in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 80 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 read with Sections 75 to 79 of the Act under separate notices dt.22.2.2012, 22.2.2012, 27.6.2012, 27.6.2012, 27.6.2012 and 9.10.2012 respectively.

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that the properties of the petitioners were being assessed to property tax from time to time by the appropriate authorities under the erstwhile Cantonments Act, 1924; that taxes were being paid regularly; that the impugned notices were issued proposing Triennial Revision of the assessment for the period 1-4-2009 to 31-3-2012; that they had submitted representations/objections opposing the said revision; and that in the said objections they have specifically contended that the Chief Executive Officer of the Board inherently lacks jurisdiction to do the Triennial Revision of Assessment proposed by him.