The Madurai Bench upheld a writ petition challenging the cancellation of property tax assessment in the petitioner's name and restoration to a deceased father. The Court held that the title dispute based on a Will could not be decided under Article 226.
None granted; writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach civil court for title.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.3878 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD).No.3878 of 2013 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2013
L.S. Udaya kumar,
: Petitioner
Vs
: Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.118/2012 dated 28.12.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the first respondent to restore the name of the petitioner
1/4
W.P(MD)No.3878 of 2013
in the Property Receipt within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Jesima Yasmin For M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.A.John Vincent
ORDER
The present writ petition had been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent herein, under which the property tax assessment standing in the name of the petitioner was cancelled and it was restored in the name of one L.Sundaram, who is the father of the writ petitioner and the second respondent.
2.Admittedly, the property belongs to the said L.Sundaram. After his death, the property tax assessment was transferred in the name of the petitioner, based upon a Will. However, the second respondent has thereafter objected to transfer of the property tax assessment to the name of the petitioner. Based upon the representation given by the second respondent, the present impugned order has been passed by the first respondent, restoring the 2/4
W.P(MD)No.3878 of 2013
property tax assessment in the name of the said L.Sundram.
3.From the narration of the above facts, it is clear that there is a title
dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent based upon a Will dated 22.01.2010. This issue cannot be decided either by the first respondent or by this Court by exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The property tax assessment has been restored in the name of the original owner. This Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the first respondent and the same is sustained. The writ petitioner and second respondent are at liberty to approach the civil Court to decide about the title over the property. Based upon the outcome of the civil proceedings, the parties are at liberty to approach the authorities for change of assessment.
4.With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.09.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No lr
3/4
W.P(MD)No.3878 of 2013
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
lr
To The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, B. Meenatchipuram, Bodinaickanur Taluk, Theni District
W.P(MD).No.3878 of 2013
12.09.2022
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the property tax authority acted illegally in restoring property assessment to the original owner name due to a succession dispute.
Whether a property tax authority can adjudicate on title disputes arising from a Will.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
L.S. Udaya kumar
The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, B. Meenatchipuram, Bodinaickanur Taluk, Theni District
L.S. Selvin Kumar
R. Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
