Allowed

Mohammed Meera v. the Commissioner

Madras HC21 Jun 2022WP(MD)/5503/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This constitution bench order quashed a property tax demand notice issued by Dindigul City Municipal Corporation. The court approved the quash based on a direction from a prior judgment, noting that while Lok Adalat awards are generally binding, they do not preclude periodic tax revisions if there is an overlap in assessment periods.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned demand notice dated 03.01.2020 and remanded the matter to file of the first respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law.

Mohammed Meera Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.5503 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2022 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.5503 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.4799 & 4800 of 2020

... Petitioner

Mohammed Meera

Vs.

The Commissioner,

¶8

Dindigul City Municipal Corporation, Dindigul,

¶9

Dindigul District.

¶10

The Assistant Revenue Officer,

¶11

Dindigul City Municipal Corporation,

¶12

Dindigul,

¶13

Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand notice issued by the respondents dated 03.01.2020 with respect to Assessment Number 078/034/00257 (Old Number 078 / 49609) of property situated in 17B, Burma Colony, Nagal Nagar, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reassess the property tax as per the settlement arrived before Lok Adalat in Lok Adalat case No.77 of 2017 dated 11.02.2017.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.J.Lawrence * * *

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation.

¶18

2. The petitioner's residence was assessed to property tax. Aggrieved by the exorbitant demand, the petitioner raised an issue before the Lok Adalat at the pre-litigation stage itself. The matter was settled. According to the petitioner, in violation of the said Lod Adalat settlement, the present demand has been raised.

¶19

3. The petitioner's counsel relies on the order dated 21.07.2017 made in W.P.(MD)No.17415 of 2010 ( The Tamil Radhasoami https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Satsang Association V. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai) . A

¶20

1/2

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.5503 of 2020

¶22

learned Judge of this Court held that the local body cannot go against the Lak Adalat award in the matter of demanding property tax.

¶23

4. No one can take exception to the said proposition. But as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing counsel appearing for Dindigul Municipal Corporation, a Lok Adalat award cannot perpetually tie the hands of the local body. It is well known that periodical revisions are made in the matter of property tax. Therefore, in the very nature of things, the Lok Adalat award cannot come in the way of subsequent general revisions. In the impugned demand, the details are not quite clear. Lok Adalat award was passed on 11.02.2017. While so, the impugned demand includes the period from 2015 onwards. Therefore, prima facie the period covered by the Lok Adalat award and the period covered in the impugned demand overlap.

¶24

5 . Respectfully following the order dated 2 1.07.2017 made in W.P.(MD)No.17415 of 2010 (The Tamil Radhasoami Satsang Association V. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai) the impugned demand is quashed. This writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remanded to file of the first respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

PMU

¶26

To:

¶27

The Commissioner, Dindigul City Municipal Corporation, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶28

The Assistant Revenue Officer, Dindigul City Municipal Corporation, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.J. LAWRANCE, Advocate ( SR-27271[F] dated 22/06/2022 )

¶30

+1 CC to M/s.D. VENKATESH, Advocate ( SR-27362[F] dated 22/06/2022 ) W.P.(MD)No.5503 of 2020 21.06.2022

¶31

SR (CO)

¶32

GC(06.07.2022) 2P 5C

¶33

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

¶34

2/2

Mohammed Meera v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Meera v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karthick.a Vs the District Collector

Toothukudi Vadadhisai Hindu Nadar Mahamai Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Palanisamy Vs the District Collector

R.Jesu Anthoniraj Vs The Chief Educational Officer

John Alfred.D Vs Inspector General of Registration

Jeyanthi John Vs Inspector General of Registration