K.M.Jayaraman, v. The Commissioner,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.06.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.Nos.12046 to 12052 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2015 K.M.Jayaraman ... Petitioner in all WPs Vs.
The Commissioner Vaniyambadi Municipality Vaniyambadi, Vellore District ... Respondent in all WPs W.P.Nos.12046 to 12052 of 2015 : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the enhanced property tax assessment order vide impugned notices dated 22.06.2013, 01.08.2011, 22.06.2013, 22.06.2013, 22.06.2013, 22.06.2013 on the file of the respondent pertaining to the petitioner's shop at Door Nos.979/5, 979/12, 973, 974, 975, 977 ,979/1 situated at C.N.A. Street, Vaniyambadi Town, Vellore District bearing Assessment numbers 18183, 18321, 18144, 18145, 18146, 18148, 18179 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Gnanesewaran For Respondent :
Mr.L.Joseph Standing Counsel C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioner is the owner of the immovable property in which there are several tenants. The proceedings which are impugned in these writ petitions are notices of demand issued to the occupiers of the property, namely the tenants of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has mainly challenged the impugned proceedings on the ground that the property tax was revised without following the procedures under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act resulting in the issuance of urgent notice dated 19.10.2005 demanding arrears of tax from 2nd half year 1993-1994 to 2nd half year 2004-2005 for Shop Nos. 979/5, 973, 974, 977 and 975, 2nd half year 1998-99 to 1st half year 2011-12 for shop No.979/12, 2nd half year 1993-94 to 2nd half year 20042005 for Shop No.979/1. The said notices were questioned by the petitioner by filing a suit in O.S.No.42 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi and the petitioner prayed for a declaration to declare the urgent notice as null and void and for a permanent injunction.
3. Before the civil Court, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and marked three documents as Exs.A1 to A3. On the side of the respondent Municipality, the Revenue Inspector was examined as DW1, but no documents were marked. The trial Court framed three issues for consideration, namely whether the urgent notice dated 19.11.2005 is maintainable? whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration and permanent injunction? and whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
4. Issue No.3 was taken up for consideration at the first instance and the trial Court held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit. Thereafter, it proceeded to consider Issue No.1 and it was held by the trial Court that the notice was issued without following the principles of natural justice and without following the procedure stipulated under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that the notice was not valid. Accordingly, a decree for declaration and permanent injunction was granted. However, the civil Court did not foreclose the respondent's right to reassess the property. It was pointed out by the Court in Paragraph 9 of the judgment that the Municipality is at liberty to reassess the tax as per the procedure laid down under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.
However, the respondent Municipality, without filing an appeal as against the judgment in O.S.No.42 of 2006, issued notice to the occupiers calling upon them to pay the arrears of property tax payable by the petitioner and the only difference being that the arrears was demanded from 1993-1994 to 2012-2013-II and what was subject matter of challenge before the Civil Court was the period which falls within the said period.
Thus, the respondent Municipality, having suffered a decree, could not have initiated such an action. However, it is always open to the respondent Municipality to reassess the property after following the procedure under law.
In the light of the above, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notices dated 22.06.2013 and 01.08.2011 are quashed with liberty to the respondent Municipality to reassess the property tax by following the procedure under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and the rules framed thereunder.
No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gpa To The Commissioner Vaniyambadi Municipality Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.
+1cc to Mr.L.Joseph, Advocate, S.R.No.30098 W.P.Nos.12046 to 12052 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2015 PVS(CO) CA(29/06/2016)