Dismissed

P.Madaiyan v. The Secretary to Government of

Madras HC6 Apr 2018WP/8059/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking mandatory relief to direct respondents to dispose of a representation regarding property tax assesment, the Court held it cannot grant the writ as the petitioner admitted occupying Railway Poromboke, making the construction illegal and untaxable. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus sought for disposal of representation is refused; writ petition dismissed with no costs.

P.Madaiyan Vs The Secretary to Government of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.8059 of 2018

¶6

P.Madaiyan ...Petitioner
v.
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Municipal Administration
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Taxation Appeal Committee
Dharmapuri Municipality
Dharmapuri
3.The Commissioner
Dharmapuri Municipality
Dharmapuri
4.The Zonal Director
Municipality Administrator and Water Supply Board
Salem. ...Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2018.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.J.Pothiraj

¶10

Spl. Govt. Pleader (T)- for R1, R2 & R4

¶11

Mr.M.Elumalai

¶12

Government Advocate (T) - for R3

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard Mr.M.Selvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the 3rd respondent. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

The petitioner seeks for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to dispose of his representation dated 19.02.2018.

¶17

It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Municipality that the petitioner has admitted that he is occupying a land classified as Railway Poromboke.

¶18

Since the petitioner is an encroacher of Railway land, the 3rd respondent-Municipality cannot assess the construction put up on the said land to the property tax as it is an illegal construction.

¶19

In view of the above, this court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus as sought for by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶20

-s/d- Deputy Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

¶23

2.The Taxation Appeal Committee Dharmapuri Municipality Dharmapuri

¶24

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

¶25

3.The Commissioner Dharmapuri Municipality Dharmapuri

¶26

4.The Zonal Director

¶27

Municipality Administrator and Water Supply Board Salem.

¶28

+1 CC to Mr.M.Selvam, Advocate Sr.No.25716

¶29

+1 CC to Government Pleader, High Court, Chennai Sr.No.25960
W.P.No.8059 of 2018
KP(18/04/2018)

¶30

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

P.Madaiyan v. The Secretary to Government of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Madaiyan v. The Secretary to Government of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.v.M.G.Enterprises, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Ss Manufacturing Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Tvl.Golden Shower Garments, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

S.Thajudeen, Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

M/s.Nouveaux Industries Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Tvl.Sunrise Agencies, Vs The State Tax Officer