AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.Ramesh, J
Brief facts in W.P.No.44066 of 2018 are as follows:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not entertaining petitioner application for construction of building, as to the demand and payment of vacant land tax prior to conversion of recreation (park) usage to commercial usage in respect of his land of an extent of 13713.445sq.mts., in NTS No.71, Revenue ward no.11, Block no.4, Old Municipal ward No.28 of Patamata, Vijayawada, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to accept petitioner application for construction of building in the subject property.
Brief facts in W.P.No.13893 of 2021 are as follows:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in demanding the petitioner to pay arrears of vacant land tax (VLT) to the tune of Rs.4,86,54,628/- (Rupees four crore eighty six lakhs fifty four thousand six hundred and twenty eight only) in order to accept the application for construction of building in NTS No.71, revenue ward no.11, block no.4, old municipal corporation, Krishna District inspite of stay granted against vacant land tax (VLT) vide order dated 22.3.2018 in I.A.No.1/2018 in W.P.No.20771/2017 in favour of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to accept and process the application of the petitioner for construction of building in NTS No.71, revenue ward no.11, block no.4, old municipal corporation, Krishna District either through online or in person without insisting for payment of arrears of vacant land tax.
In both writ petitions, the writ petitioner and the issue involved is one and the same. Hence the two writ petitions are being disposed of with a common order.
Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Kilaru Nithin Krishna, learned Counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.13893 of 2021 and of Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Municipal Corporation. An extent of Ac.0.35cents of land was earmarked for residential usage and the remaining extent Ac.3.26cents is earmarked for recreation (park) usage and the same was earmarked in the master plan of the year 1969 and also 2006. In the land earmarked for residential usage, the petitioner has constructed sheds and they are assessed to property tax by the 2nd respondent every year and the petitioner has been paying the same accordingly.