Allowed

S.v.Ramaswami v. The Commissioner

Madras HC7 Jan 2016WP/534/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ seeking a mandamus directing the Assistant Revenue Officer to dispose of a representation on property tax revision. The Court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the competent authority within two weeks for consideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to submit a fresh application to the Assistant Revenue Officer, Zone-5 within two weeks; authority directed to consider same and pass appropriate orders on merits after hearing.

S.v.Ramaswami Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.01.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No.534 of 2016

¶6

1.S.V.Ramaswami
2.S.V.Subbarayalu ...Petitioners
Vs
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Building,
Chennai 600 003.
2. The Assistant Revenue Officer,
Zone No.2,
Corporation of Chennai,
No.47, Basin Bridge Road,
Chennai 600 079. ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 05.10.2015 pertaining to the revision of property tax for the property bearing Old Door No.227, New No.108/1, Govindappa Naicken Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 001.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.Murali Kumaran for

¶9

M/s.Mcgan law Firm

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.T.C.Balakrishnan

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

2.This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 05.10.2015 with regard to revision of the property tax.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

3.It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the property situated at Old Door No.227, New No.108/1, Govindappa Naicken Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 001, measuring an extent of 1657 ½ sq.ft. by a partition deed dated 29.08.1986 bearing Document No.404 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet. While so, re-assessment notice dated 20.10.2009 came to be issued to the petitioners, revising the property tax pertaining to the property of the petitioners, against which, the petitioners have some grievances. Hence, they made representation on various dates and finally by the one dated 05.10.2015 to the second respondent and the same is yet to be disposed. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the above stated relief.

¶16

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶17

5.Mr.T.C.Balakrishnan, learned standing counsel, who took notice for the respondents, submitted that the petitioners may be directed to submit a fresh application to the competent authority and on filing of such application, the same would be considered and appropriate order would be passed by the authority concerned.

¶18

6.In view of the above, the petitioners are permitted to make application before the Assistant Revenue Officer, Zone -5, Corporation of Chennai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing of such application, the Assistant Revenue Officer, Zone -5, Corporation of Chennai is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners.

¶19

7.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶20

sd/Assistant Registrar(Cs-VI)

¶21

/TRUE COPY/ Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

To,

¶24

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building, Chennai 600 003.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

The Assistant Revenue Officer, Zone No.2, Corporation of Chennai, No.47, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai 600 079.

¶27

+1 CC to M/s.Mcgan law Firm Advocate. SR.NO.1854

¶28

W.P.No.534 of 2016

¶29

CO-SV
JD 11/02/2016

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.v.Ramaswami v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.v.Ramaswami v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Velu Vs The Regional Transport Officer

V.Kumar Vs The Regional Transport Officer

S.P.Annamalai Vs The State Transport Authority

S.Balavignesh Vs The Motor Vehicles Inspector

M/s.Maxcell Distributors, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

R.Vijayakumar Vs The Regional Transport Officer