LAWS(APH)-1977-12-39

YEDLAPATI VENKATESWARLU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On December 27, 1977
YEDLAPATI VENKATESWARLU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A river of part our judgement dated 9th Dec. 1977 rendered in W. A. No. 465/76 is sought in this petition. That Writ Appeal arose out of W. P. 384/75 wherein the petitioner was unsuccessful and who consequently preferred and writ appeal. In the Writ Petition he sought a declaration that G. O. Ms. No. 255 M. A. Dated 15th of June, 1973 and assessments of properties in pursuance of the G. O. made by the Vujayawada Municipality from 1-10-1973 were illegal, void and unconstitutional. A direction to the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Vijayawada Municipality was also prayed for restraining them from enforcing the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Are) District Municipalities Act, 1920 for the purpose of levying tax on property. Our learned brother Kuppuswami, J. heard this and another writ petition together and dismissed both of them. Along with the Writ Appeal we heard and disposed another writ appeal and writ petition.

(2.) It is unnecessary here to go into the circumstances in which the writ petition had been filed,. In out judgement of 9th Dec. 1977 we have given the background. One of the contentions raised by Sri Koteswara Rao during the arguments in the writ appeal was about the tenability of the actual enhancement of the tax and the manner of enhancement. His objection was to the basis of enhancement mentioned in the impugned special notice as being estimated or reported rental value. According to the learned Counsel, standard rent alone should be the basis and rental value could not be estimated at more than the standard rent. it was argued that even if higher rent was collected by the owner of the properties illegally, only the standard rent should be the basis for assessment of tax. Leaned Counsel who appeared in the writ appeal, which was heard along with this writ appeal, challenged the reasons given in the special notice by the taxing authority for the enhancement of the tax. It was pointed out that no prior opportunity had been given to the ratepayer as required under Rule 6 of Schedule II of the 1965 Municipalities Act before the enhancement of tax by way of special notice. Dealing with these objection, we pointed out that the learned Single Judge, who had dismissed the writ petitions, rejected the latter contention holding that the entire procedure should be examined from the perspective of the 1920 Act and not the 1965 Act. Disposing of these contentions we observed in our judgement of 9th Dec. 1977:

(3.) In a very elaborate and emphatic argument Sri Koteswara Rao stressed his review petition thus: At the time of the arguments in the writ appeal learned counsel had failed to place before the Court that Art. 226 of the constitution provides a remedy in public law and where issues of public law are involved, in particular where principles of natural justice are violated, the High Court has no discretion left with it to dismiss the writ petition and relegate the parties to a statutory appeal or to a suit. He further stated that he had failed to being to our notice the latest decision of the Supreme Court dated 28th of Sept., 1977 reported in c. A. T. A. Sales Co-op. Society v. A. P. Government, AIR 1977 SC 2313. A Division Bench of this Court held in Tax-Payers Association v. Special Officer, Tirupati (1977) 2 APLJ 167 : (AIR 1977 NOC 360 (Andh Pra)) that enhancement of tax without following requisite procedure and without giving adequate reasons for it was bad. It was followed by another Division Bench in W. P. No. 4121 of 1976. We sitting as a Division Bench were merely exercising co-ordinate jurisdiction and we are therefore bound to follow the earlier Bench decisions. all this, be it a commission or omission on our part, is tantamount to an error apparent on the face of the record which warrants a review, so ran the contention of the petitioners learned counsel