TANUKU MUNICIPALITY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these writ petitions is lanuku Municipality representedby its Chairman. Since the same questions of facts and law arise in these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. To appreciate the questions that arise for consideration, it would suffice to refer to the facts in W.P.No. 9064/87.

(2.) The dispute relates to piorerty tax assessed on the lauds ofMullapudi Kamala Devi who owns extensive vacant sites in Tanuku Municipality. The Subject matter of the writ was transferred by the said Mullapudi Kamala Devi to the third respondent which is a trust. In 1976, when Tanuku was a Gram Panchayat, the husband of Mullapudi Kamala Devi applied for conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural lands and for sanctipn of lay out plan for building sites. The permission was granted and the lay-out plan was approved by the Director of Town Planning. In respect of open space and the roads marked in the lay-out plan. Mullapudi Kamala Devi executed a gift deed in favour of Tanuku Panchayat on 10-10-1976. In 1978-79, Tanuku Gram Panchayat was converted into Tanuku Municipality (for short 'the Municipality'). The son of said Mullapudi Kamala Devi was elected as the Chairman of the Municipality. While so, a resolution was passed by the Municipality that no tax should be levied on vacant land. Consequently. tax was not assessed on the vacant land by the Municipality from 1980 to 1985, One Mr. Chitturi Subba Rao filed a representation to the Director of Municipal Administration bringing this position to his notice in 1985. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Joint Director of the Municial Administration and on 11-3-1986, a circular was issued directing all the municipalities to collect tax on vacant lands. The Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to the said Mullapudi Kamala Devi calling upon her to explain as to why tax should not be levied on the vacant land. On 25-3-1986, the Commissioner of the petitioner-Municipality inspected the sites in question and assessed the tax on vacant sites under Rule 14 of the Rules in Schedule II. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner, she filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority who allowed the appeal on 20-5-1987. The correctness of the orders passed by the Appellate Commissioner is assailed in all these writ petitions.

(3.) In other writ petitions Mullapudi Kamala Devi is the thirdrespondent.