Dismissed

T. Senthilkumar v. the Commissioner

Madras HC30 Jul 2019WP(MD)/20539/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order regarding property tax remittance. The court noted a dispute over title between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, with a pending civil suit in the Additional District Munsif Court. The petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 both claimed the land is Government Poramboke. The court viewed it as unnecessary to pass further orders given the pending litigation.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; parties at liberty to pursue civil litigation; No costs; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

T. Senthilkumar Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.20539 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.07.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.(MD)No.20539 of 2013

¶4

and M.P.(MD)No.1 and 2 of 2013

¶5

T.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner

¶6

/Vs./

¶7

1.The Commissioner, Madurai Municipal Corporation, Tallakulam, Madurai – 625 002.

¶8

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Zone No.I, Madurai Municipal Corporation, Tallakulam, Madurai-625 002.

¶9

3.The President, All India Congress Committee, Sathiyamoorthy Bhavan, Thenampet, Chennai.

¶10

4.P.Sheik Ayuub ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records related to the impugned order in Ma.1 Va.3/007260/13 dated 04.12.2013 passed by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Murugesan For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.R.Murali For R-3 : No appearance For R-4 : Mr.G.Aravinthan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This is a dispute as to who the proper person to remit property tax in regard to the property bearing No.9/35, Vaithyanathapuram Main Road, Madurai, (land in question), would be. The aforesaid dispute has arisen as between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The petitioner challenges impugned order dated 04.12.2013, passed by the second respondent based on a representation by the fourth respondent to the effect that the land in question constitutes Government Poramboke and the petitioner ought not to be remitting property tax in regard to the same. The insistence by the petitioner to remit property tax and the equal insistence by the fourth respondent objecting to such payment, thus clearly arises from a dispute over title to the property in

¶15

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

¶16

1/2

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.20539 of 2013

¶18

question. The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.68 of 2015 pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai, seeking permanent injunction restraining the fourth defendant therein (arrayed as 4^th respondent before me) as well other defendants therein from interfering with his possession of the property in question.

¶19

The stand of the official respondents i.e., R-1 and R-2 is to the effect that the land in question is classified as Government Poramboke and neither the petitioner nor the fourth respondent can have any rightful claim/title in relation to the same.

¶20

Admittedly, between 2013, when the impugned order has been passed and now, respondents 1 and 2 have not received property tax payments in regard to the property in question from either party.

¶21

In the light of the pendency of the civil suit and the narration as above, I am of the view that no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. This Writ Petition is thus dismissed. The parties are at liberty to pursue the civil litigation before the competent Court. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶23

+1 CC to M/s.P.JESSI JEEVA PRIYA, Advocate ( SR-78726[F] dated 31/07/2019 )

¶24

+1 CC to Mr.R.MURALI, Advocate ( SR-78737[F] dated 31/07/2019 ) +1 CC to MR.N.MURUGESAN, Advocate ( SR-79006[F] dated 31/07/2019 )

¶25

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.20539 of 2013 Dated:30.07.2019

¶26

SM MK (27.09.2019) 2P 4C

¶27

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

¶28

2/2

T. Senthilkumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Senthilkumar v. the Commissioner

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

K.N. Solairajan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs The Asst.Commissioner of Customs(refund)

A.Balu Vs The Secretary

L.Ramesh Kannan, Vs the District Collector

A.Selvam Vs The Assistant Director(MInes)

Ramar Vs The District Collector