The Salem Dt. Central Coop. v. The Urban Land Tax Tribunal,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.46591 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.No.67732 of 2002 The Salem District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Cherry Road, Salem - 636 001.
Rep by its General Manager .. Petitioner Vs.
1) The Urban Land Tax Tribunal, (District Revenue Officer),
2) The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Erode.
.. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in S.R.1 of 2002 on the file of Urban Land Tax Tribunal (District Revenue Officer) Salem, the first respondent herein and quash the order passed therein dated 14.08.2002 through which he confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Erode in 8/B26/1401/dated 24.01.2002.
For Petitioner : M/s.M.R.Raghavan For Respondents: M/s.S.Kanmani Annamalai, Special Government Pleader for Respondents.
ORDER
The petitioner-Co-Operative Bank in this writ petition has come forward challenging the impugned order of the Urban Land Tax Tribunal in S.R.1 of 2002 dated 14.08.2002 issued by the first respondent herein.
2.The grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 24.01.2002, confirming the order of the Assessment Officer dated 16.09.1993 levying Urban Land Tax by adopting the market value at Rs.74,700/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand Seven Hundred only) per ground for the urban land in T.S.No.8 in Ward 'B' Block 26, measuring 29-1084 grounds of Salem Town, with effect from 01.07.1991 is incorrect and submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has passed an assessment order adopting the market value as on 01.07.1981 based on G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue Department, dated 20.05.1992.
3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub Judge, Salem District under section 20 (1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act of 1966 in Urban Land Tax Appeal No.12 of 1993 and the Sub-Judge set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. Pursuant to the said order of the Sub Judge, notice was issued and the petitioner was heard and fresh orders have been passed. Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was filed and the appellant authority has also confirmed the order.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Raghavan, the learned Sub-Judge, at the time of remand, has referred to Ex.A.1 and further held that the sale deed was available and they should have been necessarily considered, as the value on 01/07/1981 should have been determined after granting a reasonable allowance for increase in the land price. He further submitted that the guideline market value was available and Ex.A.1 has been referred by the learned Sub-Judge by order dated 23.07.1996 and completely brushing aside the observations of the learned Sub Judge, an order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, indirectly confirming the original order and fixing the rate which is totally based on nonapplication of mind.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the documents were available, without a whisper to those documents, the authority ought not have passed an order without reference to these documents and hence, the order of the original authority as well as the appellate authority are to be interfered with.
6. Per Contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that it is true that the matter was remitted by the Principal Sub Judge, Salem with directions and taking into consideration the observations made in the order, in page 3 of the typed set of papers which is the original order passed by the learned Sub-Judge and the learned Sub-Judge observed that the Assistant Commissioner made it very clear that the document Ex.A.1 has been referred to in the order
of the Assistant Commissioner, Land Urban Tax, Salem and nothing with regard to any sale deed. The Principal Judge has also observed the sale deeds are available and the authority must have considered the value as on 01.07.1981 and ought to have given the reasons for increase of land prices.
7. Thus it is seen that even though the petitioner has referred to the sale deed, he has not evinced any interest to produce any copy of the sale deed for the purpose of comparing the guideline and market value. The original order is of the year 1993 and nearly 25 years have gone by. This Court would not accept this contention of the petitioner that there will be an assessment and he is willing to produce the sale deed to establish his contention that the value determined was wrong and that pursuant to the interim order of this Court, 50% of the amount has already been paid and has agreed to pay the remaining amount. For arriving at an amount of Rs.74,700/-, the respondent has produced the document, but the petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate the contentions and no document had been marked on the side of the petitioner either before the original authority, or the District Revenue Officer or before the learned Sub Judge.
For the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the appellate authority, District Revenue Officer dated 14.08.2002 confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 24.01.2002. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.67732 of 2002 is closed. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar sts To:
1) The Urban Land Tax Tribunal, (District Revenue Officer),
2) The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Erode.
3. The Subordinate Judge +1 Cc to Mr.M.R. Raghavan, Advocate sr 46846 +1 CC to Spl Govt. Pleader sr 46819.
W.P.No.46591 of 2002 VGI(CO) sp(18/09/2017)