Madras High CourtWP/17783/2026disposed of

Anuradha Soundirarajan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2026-06-30Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and W.M.P.No.19117 of 2026 Anuradha Soundirarajan ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water supply, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the revised assessment order for property tax No.07/089/03764/000 dated 25.03.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to revise the property tax for the property situated. at No.132, S.M.Narayanan Nagar, Collector Nagar Signal, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai - 600 101 from the period 20232024 onwards in accordance with law, after affording a right of hearing to the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.Guruswaminathan for Mr.Nageswaran For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, Government Counsel for R1 Mr.E.C.Ramesh, Standing Counsel for R2

ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed in order dated 03.06.2026 was complied with. He has filed a memo to that effect. 2.The primary grievance of the petitioner is that only a small portion of her property admeasuring about 150 sq.ft. is put to commercial use. According to her, the rest of the property is used for purely residential purposes. In spite of raising objections on 25.11.2025, the petitioner states that the impugned order was issued without providing a hearing to the petitioner. 3.Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Chennai Corporation submits that the petitioner's premises was inspected on 11.06.2026. He confirms that a sum of Rs.80,000/- was remitted by the petitioner in compliance with the condition imposed earlier.

4.From the above narration, it follows that the limited grievance of the petitioner is that the extent of property put to commercial use was not measured before issuing the impugned order. In view thereof, especially considering the fact that about Rs.80,000/- was remitted by the petitioner, reconsideration is warranted. In order to enable such reconsideration, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for reconsideration. After putting the petitioner on notice, the property shall be inspected and a fresh order shall be issued after considering the petitioner's objections within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that the amount of Rs.80,000/- remitted by the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of remanded proceedings.

5.The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 30-06-2026 Index: No Speaking order hvk

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

hvk To

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water supply, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai.

30-06-2026