J. Deepak vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

Heard Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Arun Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 – GHMC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted a representation seeking mutation of the property bearing H.No.8-3-1099/A, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, in his name, as legal heir of the original owner, namely, Ms. J. Jayalalitha and further requested the respondent authorities to unseal the property. The GHMC has sealed the property without following due process of law. Subsequently, by virtue of interim order passed by this Court on 01.04.2026 the property has been unsealed and a sum of Rs.33,06,753/- has been paid by the petitioner as directed by this Court.

Learned standing counsel for GHMC filed counter and submitted as per Sections 207 and 208 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, notice of transfer of title and subsequent mutation in the municipal revenue records cannot be effected without full clearance of all outstanding property tax dues up to the date of transfer/mutation. There are long pending tax arrears, dispute over assessments and uncleared dues on the subject property vide PTIN: 1100833474 and as such, there is a statutory bar under Sections 207 and 208 of the GHMC Act and mutation application cannot be processed, However, the subject property can only be assessed under the residential category if it is actively utilized for residential dwelling/habitation. The subject premises remained completely unoccupied and devoid of residents/inhabitants. Hence, the premises cannot be converted or re-classified into residential assessment category based merely on a future or hypothetical claim.

Learned standing counsel further submitted that the petitioner claims retrospective vacancy remission for nine continuous fiscal years (FY 2017-18 to FY 2025-26) which exceeds the maximum permissible statutory period of 3 to 3 ½ years. The retrospective relaxation beyond the statutory limit laid down under Section 225(4) is legally impermissible, notwithstanding the internal departmental note. It is submitted that GHMC has received an official communication from the office of the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO), Central 2, Chennai, vide DŇ & Letter No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2026-27/1088404983(1) dated 10.04.2026, which was registered in GHMC records vide Inward No.e-895722/2026/C2/HO dated 22.04.2026. By virtue of the said letter, the Income Tax Department has informed GHMC that the subject property stands attached under ITCP-16 dated 21.07.2007 for recovery of substantial tax arrears and the Tax Recovery Officer requested GHMC to refrain from initiating or continuing any further proceedings, enforcement or dispossession action on the subject premises to prevent jurisdictional conflicts and ensure compliance with statutory legal processes.

Learned standing counsel further submitted that in the light of the attachment effected by the Income Tax Department, GHMC does not have any other option but to attach the property and maintain status quo. The petitioner may be permitted to approach the Income Tax Department and seek clarification on raising of attachment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that attachment order passed by the Income Tax Department has got nothing to do with the mutation over the subject property. The ownership of the property cannot be in a dilemma. It is not as if the Income Tax Department has got objection to the mutation. The mutation application of the petitioner has to be considered on merits. If the Income Tax Department seeks to realize the income tax arrears, it should resort to the provisions of Income Tax Act and the Rules made thereunder and effect sale of the property pursuant to the attachment. It is for the Income Tax Department to do so by following due process of law but the same cannot be a ground to keep the mutation under abeyance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the photographs appended to the writ petition clearly show that the property is a residential property suitable for residential accommodation and the property has been illegally assessed as commercial property.

However, learned standing counsel for GHMC submitted that the issue herein is not as to whether the subject property is residential or commercial but whether the property is occupied or not.

In the light of the above submissions, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.03.2026 for mutation of the subject property. This exercise shall be done within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by issuing notice to the petitioner and the Income Tax Department. Apart from the above, the respondent authorities shall also consider the claim of the petitioner for assessing the property as residential as claimed by the petitioner. The amount of Rs.33,06,753/-, paid pursuant to the interim order of this Court, shall be adjusted to the payable property tax arrears.

The writ petition is disposed of. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as costs.