Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the assessment of property tax made in respect of the property in question said to be belonging to the petitioner. He had also submitted that the petitioner had paid the pre-revision tax, along with 50% of the differential amount said to be due from the petitioner. It had also been stated that the said appeal is pending on the file of the Taxation Appeals Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had also submitted that no action would be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the balance amount of property tax, due to be paid by the petitioner, till the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, since, no further orders are necessary, the writ petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.