P RANGA REDDY Vs. KURNOOL MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal. Originally one P. Ranga Reddy filed O. S. No. 111 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, for declaration that special notice dated 29. 09. 1986 enhancing the half yearly property tax in respect of premises bearing door No. 40/318 (lodging building)and another similar special notice dated 29. 09. 1986 in respect of premises bearing door No. 40/317-D1 (godown building) are illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant municipality (respondent herein) from realising said amount. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 20. 03. 1990, aggrieved by which, this appeal suit is filed. Pending the appeal, original plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their status in the suit. The plaintiff was owner of considerably huge complex. It consists of godown building, which has 16 godowns under the occupation of the tenants. There is a hotel in the complex known as Raj Vihar. Ground floor of the complex contains 15 shop rooms and one pan bunk besides 28 single rooms and 28 double rooms, some of which are deluxe rooms. To begin with, half yearly tax for both the portions was Rs. 4,457/ -. In 1983 for godown building, tax was enhanced to Rs. 7,593/- and for lodging building to Rs. 16,404/ -. Plaintiff assailed the notices by filing O. S. No. 61 of 1983. The same was decreed on 31. 07. 1984 and plaintiff continued to pay a sum of Rs. 4,457/- as half yearly tax for both the portions of the complex. In 1986, the municipal commissioner of the defendant municipality issued impugned notices and enhanced half yearly tax. For lodging building it was enhanced to Rs. 26,358/- and for godown building it was enhanced to Rs. 23,960/ -. Plaintiff filed revision, which was rejected confirming upward enhancement. Therefore, plaintiff filed o. S. No. 111 of 1987. He alleged that enhancement of tax is illegal and arbitrary because no additions or improvements were made after the previous assessment, that as per the instructions of the Director of Municipal Administration issued in 1977, unless there are additions and improvements, there cannot be any enhancement of property tax and that the enhancement is contrary to Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (Municipalities Act, for brevity ).

(2.) THE defendant municipality opposed the suit. In the written statement defendant municipality alleged that against the decree in O. S. No. 61 of 1983, an appeal was filed which is pending. It was further alleged that general tax revision as required under Rule 8 (1) of schedule II of the Municipalities Act i. e. , Taxation and Financial Rules (Taxation Rules, for brevity) was taken up for the plaintiff's complex after lapse of twenty years and that Valuation Officer personally inspected and arrived at monthly rental value of Rs. 13,000/- for the godown building and rs. 14,300/- for lodging building as they were situated centrally in commercial area of the town.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge framed appropriate issues. Son of the plaintiff gave evidence as P. W. 1 and Exs. A1 to A8 were marked. Exs. A1 and A2 are special notices issued by the municipal commissioner, Ex. A3 is revision petition filed by the plaintiff, Exs. A5 and A6 are income tax returns and Exs. A7 and A8 are endorsements given by the defendant municipality rejecting the revision. Ex. A4 is the copy of the judgment in O. S. No. 61 of 1983 dated 31. 07. 1984. The defendant examined its Valuation Officer as D. W. 1. A clerk was also examined as d. W. 2. Exs. B1 to B3 were marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the defendant municipality followed the procedure and guidelines laid down under Section 87 (2) (b) of the Municipalities Act and that Exs. A1 and A2 notices are not illegal.