Allowed

V.Balaji, v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC11 Mar 2020WP/3322/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought cancellation of a receipt issued to a third party and issuance of a fresh one in his or father's name regarding property tax paid. The Court directed the Board to issue the proper receipt, subject to the outcome of a pending civil suit on title.

What did the court decide?

Direction to cancel receipt No.118207771 dated 19.09.2011 and issue a fresh receipt in the petitioner's name or his father's name.

V.Balaji, Vs the Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.03.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No.3322 of 2012

¶6

V.Balaji ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board, No.9, Muthukrishnan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17.

¶9

The Assistant Engineer, Chennai Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board, No.9, Muthukrishnan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17.

¶10

P.Anand Raju ...Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to cancel receipt dated 19.09.2011 in reference No.118207771 and further direct the respondents to issue the receipt in the petitioner's name or in the name of the petitioner's father M.Vadivel.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mrs.V.S.Usha Rani For R1 & R2 : Mr.Jyothimani

¶13

The prayer made in this Writ Petition is to issue a direction to the respondent authorities to cancel the receipt dated 19.09.2011 bearing No.118207771 and to issue a fresh receipt in the name of the petitioner or his father M.Vadivel.

¶14

2.According to the petitioner, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property situated in No.21/40, Cauvery Street, Saligramam, Chennai – 93, which was originally belonging to his father. The assignment and all the revenue records relating to the said property stand in the name of his father, who is no more. On 13.07.2010, the second respondent issued a notice,

¶15

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

¶16

demanding the petitioner's father to pay a sum of Rs.1,756/-, which was duly paid by the petitioner. However, the receipt for payment of the said amount, came to be issued in favour of the third respondent, who claims himself to be the purchaser of the said property through public auction, in respect of which, a suit in CS.No.199 of 2011 is pending before this Court. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶17

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶18

4.On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the title of the property in question is pending consideration before this Court in C.S.No.199 of 2011, however, the possession of the same continues in favour of the petitioner. The only requirement of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondent Board has to issue receipt for the payment made with respect to the property in question, either in his name or in the name of his father.

¶19

5.Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, the respondents
are directed to issue proper receipt with respect to the payment
effected by the petitioner and the said payment would be subject
to the outcome of the Civil Suit pending before this Court.
6.Accordingly, this Writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS I)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
av
To
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Chennai Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board,
No.9, Muthukrishnan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai - 17.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Chennai Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board,
No.9, Muthukrishnan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17.
+1cc to M/s.V.S.Usharani, Advocate, S.R.No.21483

¶20

W.P.No.3322 of 2012 NRJK(CO) KKV/21/07/2020

¶21

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

V.Balaji, v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Balaji, v. the Superintending Engineer

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.Purushothaman Handling Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

The Society of the Daughters Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M/S.Premier Shipping Agencies Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S.Ford India Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/s.Tamana Trading, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Sterlite Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner of