Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 — S. 212 — Vacant Land Tax — Land earmarked for recreational (Park) use under Master Plan — Levy prior to conversion — Validity. Where the land of the petitioner was admittedly earmarked as residential-cum-recreational (Park) use under the Master Plan, and conversion to commercial use was approved only with effect from 08.06.2018, levy of vacant land tax for the period prior to conversion is without jurisdiction, as the petitioner was legally incapacitated from using or alienating the land during such period. (Paras 19, 20, 22, 23)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 — S. 212 — Vacant Land Tax — Land earmarked for recreational (Park) use under Master Plan — Levy prior to conversion — Validity.

Where the land of the petitioner was admittedly earmarked as residential-cum-recreational (Park) use under the Master Plan, and conversion to commercial use was approved only with effect from 08.06.2018, levy of vacant land tax for the period prior to conversion is without jurisdiction, as the petitioner was legally incapacitated from using or alienating the land during such period.

(Paras 19, 20, 22, 23)

Vacant Land Tax — Condition precedent — Ability to use land — Incapacity due to statutory reservation.

Vacant land tax cannot be levied for a period during which the landowner could neither utilize the land for any purpose nor offer it for sale, owing to statutory reservation for recreational (Park) use under the Master Plan.

(Paras 19, 20)

Municipal Administration — Demand notice — Jurisdiction — Special Notice issued pending conversion proceedings — Sustainability.

Issuance of a special notice demanding vacant land tax, while the authorities themselves had initiated and processed conversion of land use, and in the absence of any objection from statutory authorities, is arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

(Paras 16, 17, 21, 23)

Natural Justice — Administrative consistency — Contradictory stand in counter affidavit.

Where the municipal authority itself forwarded proposals, demanded processing fees, and acted upon the premise that the land was earmarked for recreational use, a contrary plea in the counter affidavit denying such earmarking is untenable and contrary to record.

(Para 21)

ANALYSIS OF FACTS (Paragraph-wise)

Nature of Challenge

The writ petition challenged the VLT Special Notice dated 22.03.2017 issued by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation demanding vacant land tax. (Para 1)

Property Details

The petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring 14,990 square yards in N.T.S. No.71, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada. (Para 2)

Master Plan Reservation

A portion of the land was earmarked for recreational (Park) use under the Master Plan; the remaining portion had sheds assessed to property tax, which the petitioner was regularly paying. (Para 3)

Initiation of Conversion Proceedings

The petitioner submitted a representation on 31.03.2015 seeking conversion of land use to commercial. The proposal was forwarded to APCRDA, and traffic impact assessment was obtained, with no objection. (Paras 4, 14, 15)

Administrative Conduct

The 2nd respondent passed a resolution and demanded processing fee of Rs.7,30,480/- on 03.06.2017. Conversion was ultimately approved and notified on 08.06.2018. (Paras 5, 17)

Earlier Litigation

Multiple writ petitions were filed earlier, culminating in directions that vacant land tax could be demanded only from 04.06.2018 onwards, leaving the legality of prior demand open for adjudication in the present writ petition. (Paras 7, 8, 9)

Municipal Stand

The municipal corporation contended that the petitioner failed to produce documents showing recreational reservation and that vacant land tax was leviable under Section 212. (Paras 10, 11)

ANALYSIS OF LAW

Core Legal Issue

Whether vacant land tax could be levied for the period prior to conversion of land use, when the land stood earmarked for recreational (Park) use.

Statutory Interpretation

The Court interpreted Section 212 of the Municipal Corporations Act in the context of actual legal usability of land, not mere physical possession. (Paras 19, 20)

Effect of Statutory Reservation

Reservation under the Master Plan created a legal embargo on use, development, or alienation of the land, disentitling the municipal authority from levying vacant land tax. (Paras 19, 20)

Administrative Consistency and Estoppel

The Court found the municipal authority’s denial of recreational earmarking to be self-contradictory, in light of its own correspondence, resolutions, and conversion proceedings. (Para 21)

Jurisdictional Error

Demand raised through the impugned special notice was held to be without jurisdiction, as it ignored the statutory and factual position prevailing during the relevant period. (Paras 22, 23)

RATIO DECIDENDI

Vacant land tax under Section 212 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 cannot be levied for a period during which the land stood statutorily earmarked for recreational (Park) use under the Master Plan and prior to its conversion, as the landowner is legally incapacitated from using, developing, or alienating the land; any demand raised for such period is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.