Southen Roadways, v. The Special Commissioner &

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

DATED: 09.07.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH W.P.No.11589 of 2005 & MP.No.12633 of 2005 Southern Roadways, Laxmi Buildings,Usilampatti Road, Cochadai,Madurai - 625 016.

Through its Chairman & Managing Director.

...Petitioner

-Vs1. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

2. The Urban Land Tax Tribunal, (District Revenue Officer (Land Tribunal), Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in Rc.B5/680/2004 dated 18.08.2004, on the file of the first respondent confirming the proceedings of the third respondent in Rc.No.766/02/A2 (U.L.T.A.69/94) dated 17.11.2003 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel for J.Antony Jesus For Respondent : Mr.A.Zakkir Hussain, Govt. Advocate for R1 to R3

O R D E R

The third respondent herein had levied Urban Land Tax of Rs.67,875/- for the lands owned by the petitioner herein in survey.No.67/3 of Mylapore Village. When the assessment order

was challenged before the DRO, by way of an appeal, the order came to be set aside with a direction to consider the sale effected in document No.1384/1980 dated 16.07.1980.

2. A fresh assessment order was passed determining the Urban Land Tax of Rs.67,875/-. The petitioner herein preferred a revision against the said order under Section 30(i) of the Urban Land Tax Act, before the first respondent herein, who had also rejected the appeal through his order dated 18.08.2004, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

3. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that, though he has placed a specific ground that the third respondent herein had not taken in to consideration of a sale effected on 15.07.1980, while determining the tax amount, the impugned order of the first respondent has not considered this aspect and therefore, the order in appeal is liable to be set aside.

4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 18.08.2004, reveals that the grounds raised by the revision petitioner was extracted therein and in consideration of such grounds, the first respondent herein had rejected the same with a vague statement that the Assistant Commissioner has taken note of sales effected on the crucial ground, the ground situation and the prevailing market trend while fixing the market value. As a matter of fact, such reasoning for rejection could be recorded, even without considering the records available and such a vague statement can be made applicable to any case which is subjected to an appeal.

5. Thus, such a vague statement could only to be termed to be one of non-application of mind. While passing orders in revisions, there is a duty cast on the revisional authority to diligently consider the grounds of revision and cite the reasons for not accepting the grounds of the revision petitioner and only then can the order be termed to be a speaking order.

6. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the view that the entire exercise of the revision should be reviewed. Consequently, the impugned order of the first respondent herein dated 18.08.2004 is set aside and order is remanded back to the first respondent for a fresh consideration. The petitioner herein is also at liberty to raise additional grounds. On receipt of such additional grounds, if any, the first respondent herein shall duly consider all the grounds raised, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The respondents are also at liberty to seek for any documents connected with the proceedings from the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Pkn.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

2. The Urban Land Tax Tribunal, (District Revenue Officer (Land Tribunal), Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

+1cc to Mr.J.Antony Jesus, Advocate, SR.No.57909 +1cc to the Govt.Pleader, Vide Sr.No.58592 W.P.No.11589 of 2005 Kak(21/08/2019)