ADARI SATYANARAYANA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the proprietor of a touring talkies, is in occupation of an extent of 1674 Sq. metres in T. Sirisapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. For the year 1403 Fasli the petitioner was assessed to tax treating the use of the land as for commercial purpose under the A.P. Non-Agricultural Land Assessment Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner appealed against the said order of the Mandal Revenue Inspector before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Munagapaka. The main contention of the petitioner was that the population of the village was less than Rs. 10,000/- and therefore no tax was leviable. However the Mandal Revenue Officer took the view that the population principle would not apply as the running of Cinema Hall is recognised as a commercial oriented industry and dismissed the appeal on 13-9-1993. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who, by his order dated 23-2-1994 dismissed the same holding that the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.275/- towards tax. It is this order of the R.D.O. that is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that running of Cinema Hall is only a commercial purpose and in view of Entry-1 in the Schedule to the Act, no tax is leviable in an area where the population is less than Rs. 10,000/-. He further contends that the revising authority has mischievously and whimsically stated that the petitioner has agreed before the authority to pay the tax of Rs.275/-, which is absolutely false and without any basis.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader, however, does not dispute that the running of Cinema theatre is commercial purpose and that the population of the village concerned is less than Rs. 10,000/-, very rightly in our view. The appellate authority did not dispute that the population of the village is less than Rs. 10,000/- but, however, proceeded on the footing that running of Cinema theatre is an industry. Though the Revenue Divisional Officer has stated in the impugned order that the petitioner has agreed to pay tax of Rs.275/-, the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer mischievously and whimsically stated that the petitioner had agreed to accept the assessment of the Mandal Revenue Inspector to pay Rs.275/-, which is absolutely false. He further stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer had heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length, but did not touch the merits of the case in the order. This allegation in the writ affidavit have not been controverted by the Revenue Divisional Officer by filing an affidavit. In the absence of the counter affidavit we accept the allegations made by the petitioner that there was no acceptance by the petitioner of the impugned demand. We will, therefore, consider the merits of the case.