Allowed

Subbaiah v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Jan 2022WP(MD)/23153/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order of property tax assessment was disposed of as a consent order. The High Court set aside the order for not adhering to earlier directives to hear both parties and for the Panchayat's misunderstanding of the earlier order, directing a fresh exercise.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.09.2021 set aside; direction to second respondent to re-do the exercise within six weeks.

Subbaiah Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.[MD]No.23153 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.01.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.[MD]No.23153 of 2021 and W.M.P.[MD]No.19596 of 2021

¶3

Subbaiah

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

Vs. 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶6

2.The President, Kannankottai Panchayat, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶7

3.Nallathambi

¶8

4.Shanmugavel ... Respondents

¶9

P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the impugned order of assessment of property tax in favour of the fourth respondent dated 29.09.2021 by the second respondent and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate For Respondent Nos.3&4 : Ms.Rajini

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The age old adage 'Blood is thicker than water' may well not be without an exception. The case on hand appears to be a classic exception to this adage as it is a tussle for immovable property in the form of land admeasuring 11 cents or thereabouts with a superstructure thereon in a part of the land, between one individual [writ petitioner] on one side and his son / grandson [respondents 3 & 4] on the other side.

¶13

2. The aforementioned immovable property is situate in Survey No.238/1 in Erolivayal Village (Kannankottai Group) Devakottai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Taluk, Sivagangai District [hereinafter 'said property' for the sake

¶14

1/7

¶15

W.P.[MD]No.23153 of 2021

¶16

of convenience and clarity].

¶17

3. The writ petitioner filed a suit against his son and grandson arraying them as defendants 1 and 2 vide O.S.No.6 of 2021 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Devakottai with a prayer for declaration of title and removal of superstructure (mandatory injunction) put up therein. This Court is informed that this suit is pending. This Court is also further informed that in this suit pleadings are complete.

¶18

4. When things stood as above, the grandson [Shanmugavel] who is Respondent No.4 in the captioned main writ petition filed an earlier writ petition being W.P.[MD]No.15199 of 2021 in this Court with a Mandamus prayer ie., a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider petitioner's application dated 08.10.2020 qua house tax assessment for said property. In this writ petition the grandson had not arrayed his grandfather [adversary] or his father as corespondents. Be that as it may, suffice to say that this writ petition came to be disposed of by another Hon'ble Single Judge in and by order dated 25.08.2021, the operative portion of this order is contained in paragraph No.6 and the same reads as follows:

¶19

' 6. In view of the aforestated facts as has been projected by the rival parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order:

¶20

that there shall be a direction to the second respondent Village Panchayat to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.10.2020, along with objection given by one Subbaiah, who is none other than grandfather of the petitioner dated 02.07.2021 and after hearing both sides and giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the said individual, Subbaiah, the second respondent shall decide and pass orders on the plea raised by the petitioner, with regard to the assessment of the property tax on the property concerned. Needful as indicated shall be undertaken by the second respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'

¶21

5. Thereafter the second respondent sent a communication dated 29.09.2021 to the writ petitioner, a scanned reproduction of which (along with a scanned reproduction of clean copy of the same) is as follows:

¶22

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

¶23

2/7

¶24

W.P.[MD]No.23153 of 2021

¶25

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

¶26

3/7

¶27

W.P.[MD]No.23153 of 2021

¶28

6. Assailing the aforementioned 29.09.2021 communication ['impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity] the grandfather has now come to Court arraying the jurisdictional District Collector, President of the local Panchayat as official https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents besides arraying his son and grandson [Nallathambi &

¶29

4/7

¶30

W.P.[MD]No.23153 of 2021

¶31

Shanmugavel] as private respondents 3 and 4.

¶32

7. In the admission Board today, Mr.R.Balakrishnan learned Counsel on record for lone writ petitioner, Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader who accepted notice on behalf of first respondent [official respondent], Mr.Ramesh Arumugam, learned Government Advocate for Kannankottai Panchayat who accepted notice on behalf of second respondent and Ms.Rajini learned Counsel who accepted notice on behalf of third and fourth respondents are before me.

¶33

8. Owing to the short point on which the matter on hand turns, main writ petition was taken up with the consent of all the aforementioned Counsel.

¶34

9. When the main writ petition was taken up with consent there was also consensus amongst the Counsel before me that the impugned order has not been made in accordance with the earlier directive given by another Hon'ble Single Judge vide aforementioned order dated 25.08.2021 in W.P.[MD]No.15199 of 2021. Learned Single Judge has directed the second respondent to consider the objection given by Subbiah [writ petitioner before me] hear both sides and give an opportunity of being heard to Shanmugavel [fourth respondent before me] as well as Subbiah [writ petitioner before me]. The impugned order does not say that such opportunity was given.

¶35

10. Be that as it may, another important aspect of the matter is the second respondent vide the impugned order has understood the earlier order of this Court to be one directing the second respondent to issue house tax receipts to Shanmugavel. This is obviously incorrect as a plain reading of paragraph No.6 [operative portion] of the earlier order and the impugned order make it clear that the second respondent has only been directed to give opportunity to both sides, consider the objections and make an order.

¶36

11. In the light of the aforementioned consensus, all the Counsel agreed for disposal of the captioned writ petition by way of a consent order and therefore, the following consent order is made: a)Impugned order [29.09.2021 communication from second respondent to writ petitioner] is set aside solely on two grounds. One ground is it is not in tune and tandem with paragraph No.6 of the earlier order made by this Court. The second point is, second respondent who made the impugned order has understood the earlier order of this Court to have directed the second respondent to issue house tax receipts in favour of Shanmugavel;

¶37

b) As the impugned order is set aside only on the aforementioned two points it is made clear that this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

5/7

¶39

W.P.[MD]No.23153 of 2021

¶40

Court has not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter;

¶41

c) The second respondent shall re-do the exercise pursuant to earlier orders of Hon'ble Single Judge in accordance with the directives therein and conclude the same as expeditiously as the business of the second respondent would permit and in any event within six [6] weeks from today ie., on or before 21.02.2022;

¶42

d) The orders / proceedings by which the aforementioned denovo exercise is concluded shall be communicated to all concerned, more particularly, writ petitioner, respondents 3 & 4 under due acknowledgment within seven working days from the date of disposal;

¶43

e) Though obvious it is made clear that all questions including pending suit and its impact qua the denovo exercise of second respondent are left open and therefore, the second respondent shall decide the matter afresh uninfluenced / untrammelled by any observation made in this order.

¶44

12. Captioned main Writ Petition is disposed of vide above directives. Consequently, captioned WMP is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶47

// True Copy //

¶48

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶49

¶50

NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶51

¶52

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶53

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

¶54

6/7

¶55

W.P.[MD]No.23153 of 2021

¶56

2.The President, Kannankottai Panchayat, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶57

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-177[F] dated 04/01/2022 )

¶58

W.P.[MD]No.23153 of 2021 03.01.2022

¶59

SK(CO) KB(12.01.2022) 7P 4C

¶60

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

¶61

7/7

Subbaiah v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subbaiah v. the District Collector

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

Abbas .R Vs the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

K.Vinodhkumar, Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Muthuramalingam M Vs the Managing Director

M/S.M.S.Marketing Vs the State Tax Officer

Raju H Vs the Licensing Authority/ Regional Transport Officer

Aadhavan P Vs the Secretary to Government