Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46102 (AP)

GURRAM VENKATA SITA RAMA ANJANEYULU v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/32143/2025 · 2025-11-18

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

-1- W.P. No.32143 OF 2025 Date of order:19.11.2025 APHC010606982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 32143/2025 Between: Gurram Venkata Sita Rama Anjaneyulu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Sri K V ADITYA CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Ld.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. Ld. GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 3. Ms. Sirisha Rani Vallabhaneni, Ld. Standing Counsel for R.4 The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.32143 OF 2025 Date of order:19.11.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.32143 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the special notice No.SN/1068070068, dt.15.08.2025 issued by the 4th respondent calling upon him to pay the revised tax. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his brother have partitioned the family property, vide registered partition deed, dt.25.01.1993. The petitioner and his brother have devolved certain portions of the property in terms of the partition deed. The learned counsel further submits that on the death of the brother of the petitioner, the undivided share of the land and the constructed area has also been partitioned between the petitioner and his brother’s family members vide partition deed, dt.26.09.2019. Unmindful of the partition of the property, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings, revising the tax payable by considering the property as one single unit. It is submitted that the property would have to be assessed for tax separately in respect of the portions held by the petitioner and his brother’s family members. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the petitioner would have to file an appeal before the Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner within 15 days from -3- W.P. No.32143 OF 2025 Date of order:19.11.2025 the date of receipt of the order passed by the Commissioner on the joint appeal filed by the petitioner and his brother. 4. Considering the submissions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, directing the petitioner to file such an appeal before the competent authority. The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Pending consideration of the appeal, the impugned special notice shall stand suspended. No costs. 5. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV