Karnataka HC directs Fair Hearing in Property Tax Dispute Case, Stays coercive actions

B Venkatasubbamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (Karnataka High Court)

In B. Venkatasubbamma vs State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner sought relief from the Karnataka High Court against alleged unlawful actions by officials and third parties regarding her property in Tirupati. Venkatasubbamma, who had been in possession of the property since 1979 and paying relevant taxes, faced a series of orders and notices aimed at challenging her occupancy and house tax assessment. The dispute intensified following a complaint by T. Gopi Krishna Reddy, whose family had previously lost legal cases attempting to claim rights to the same property. Despite a dismissed civil suit and appeal by the opposing parties, Reddy again initiated actions, urging officials to revoke Venkatasubbamma’s tax assessment and alleging unauthorized construction. The petitioner argued that these actions were without due process and asserted her longstanding right to peaceful possession.

The court acknowledged the petitioner’s claims, particularly her contention that no formal inquiry or notice had been issued to her regarding the property dispute before a recent endorsement. The Karnataka High Court responded by instructing the Tirupati Municipal Corporation’s Commissioner to fully consider Venkatasubbamma’s explanation regarding her property ownership. Emphasizing the need for a fair hearing, the court directed the officials to ensure she has ample opportunity to present her case before any decisions are made. Furthermore, the court prohibited any coercive actions, such as canceling her property tax assessment or interrupting her possession, until a reasoned order is passed. The petition was thereby disposed of, with an order ensuring due process, and any pending applications related to the case were closed without additional costs. This judgment underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring fair treatment and upholding procedural rights in property disputes.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent Commissioner, Tirupati Municipal Corporation in interfering with the possession of the property of the petitioner situated in Door No. 20-5-746/3, Plot No.217-A Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Tirupati Town, pursuant to the Provisional Order dated 03.07.2024 without following due process of law; declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent Commissioner and 3^rd respondent, Deputy Commissioner Tirupati Municipal Corporation in proceeding with cancellation of the house tax assessment of the petitioner situated in Door No 20-5-746/3, Plot No. 217-A, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Tirupati Town, pursuant to the show-cause notice without following due process of law; declaring the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in proceeding with the cancellation of the electricity service meters of the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice without following due process of law; declaring the action of the respondents 7 to 9 in interfering with the possession of the property of the petitioner situated in Door No 20-5-746/3, Plot No. 217-A, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Tirupati Town at the instance of the unofficial respondents 9 to 11 as the same is illegal, contrary to law without jurisdiction arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the official respondents not to interfere with petitioners peaceful possession of the property situated in Door No 20-5­746/3, Plot No. 217-A, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Tirupati Town pursuant the false and frivolous representations being made by the unofficial respondents 10 to 12 without following due process of law and pass such other orders….”

2. Heard Mr. P. Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader, Municipal Administration and Urban Development for the respondents.

3. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is resident of Door No 20-5-746/3, Plot No. 217-A, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Tirupati Town and she has been in possession since 1979 by paying house tax etc., and constructed thatched house initially and later asbestos sheets house. In recognition of her physical possession the Municipal Councillor of Ward No.3 also issued Possession Certificate on 01.03.1991. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner received a provisional order dated 03.07.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent to show sufficient cause as to why unauthorized construction should not be removed. The petitioner has also submitted written explanation. Further she also received another endorsement dated 04.07.2024 issued by the 3^rd respondent basing on the representation made by one Mr. T. Gopi Krishna Reddy, i.e 12^th respondent, who disputed the possession of the petitioner and seek cancellation of house tax from the authorities. The said Mr. T. Gopi Krishna Reddy, is none other than the son of 10^th respondent. The respondents 10 and 11 have filed a suit in O.S.No.1098 of 2000 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati for declaration of right and for permanent injunction, which was dismissed. Assailing the same, an Appeal in A.S.No.79 of 2005 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati and the same was also dismissed. Having failed in all attempts the respondents 10 and 11 trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject property and started another round of litigation. It is further contended that no notice has been issued to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted before issuing the said endorsement dated 29.06.2024 by the 7^th respondent, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents basing on a complaint by the unofficial respondents, the 2^nd respondent issued show-cause notice to the petitioner to explain the reasons. The petitioner submitted her explanation, which is under consideration. Therefore, requested to pass appropriate order in this writ petition.

5. In view of the submissions made by both the counsel, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, while directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause issued by him basing on the complaint made by the unofficial respondents, after affording ample opportunity of hearing of the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.