Petitioner challenged a communication increasing property tax. Court held Writ Petition unsustainable as assessment order was not assailed and petitioner failed to prove computation error despite citing other residents' lower tax rates. Petition dismissed.
Writ Petition No.9622 of 2023 dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.
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.No.9622 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Writ Petition No.9622 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.9676 & 9678 of 2023
P.A.Nagavalli ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003.
2.The Zonal Officer, Office of the Zonal Officer, Zone XIII, Ward No.174, Adayar, Chennai-600 020. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records connected with the proceedings of the 2nd respondent's letter No.Ma.A.13.Va.thu.Na.Ka.No.R1/00405/2023 dated 09.03.2023 and to quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to recalculate the 1/7
W.P.No.9622 of 2023
property tax prospectively according to the property tax computation without
violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Selvaraj
For Respondents : Ms.K.Aswini Devi, Standing Counsel
ORDER
The petitioner assails a communication dated 09.03.2023 by which the petitioner was informed that the half yearly property tax was raised from Rs.4,470/- to Rs.10,318/- with effect from first half of 2022 - 2023.
in the cause title of the petition for more than 30 years. The petitioner further states that property tax was demanded at Rs.4,470/- for the period commencing from the first half of 2021 although the petitioner had paid property tax up to the first half of 2021 - 2022 on 15.07.2021. The petitioner further states that property tax payable by her has been increased from Rs.71/- to Rs.10,318/- under the impugned communication. The present writ petition was filed in the said facts and circumstances.
2/7
W.P.No.9622 of 2023
respondents submits that property tax was being paid by the petitioner at the nominal rate of Rs.71/- per half year until the second half of 2019 - 2020.
Upon proper measurement of the area of the petitioner's property, it is stated that the property tax per half year was fixed at Rs.4,470/- from the first half of 2020-2021. According to the respondents, such fixation was not based on an increase in the property tax rates. Thereafter, based on a circular issued by the Government, the property tax rates were increased. Learned counsel submits that the said circular was challenged in proceedings before this Court and that such challenge was rejected. The matter is said to be pending
3/7
W.P.No.9622 of 2023
before the Division Bench. Learned counsel further submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed because the petitioner has assailed a communication with regard to property tax and not the assessment order. Learned counsel points out that an appellate remedy is available against the assessment order.
which indicates that property tax was paid by the petitioner up to the first half of 2021 - 2022 at Rs.71/- per half year. The DCB relating to the petitioner reveals, however, that property tax was payable at Rs.4,470/- from the first half of 2021 to the second half of 2021 - 2022. The fixation of property tax per half year at Rs.4,470/- is not the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Therefore, no opinion is being expressed with regard to the fixation of the property tax for the said period at Rs.4,470/-.
4/7
W.P.No.9622 of 2023
respondents submitted that the revision was in accordance with the circular issued in this regard, and that the validity of the circular was upheld by this
Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out as to how the sum of Rs.10,170/- per half year was not arrived at in accordance with the said circular. Instead, reliance is placed on the half yearly property tax of the other residents on the same street or on an adjoining street. The petitioner cannot succeed in assailing the property tax fixation merely by referring to the amount fixed in respect of other residents because the fixation of property tax would obviously depend upon the nature and extent of the relevant property.
5/7
W.P.No.9622 of 2023
09.01.2024
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No kj
To 1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003. 2.The Zonal Officer, Office of the Zonal Officer, Zone XIII, Ward No.174, Adayar, Chennai-600 020.
6/7
W.P.No.9622 of 2023
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
kj
Writ Petition No.9622 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.9676 & 9678 of 2023
09.01.2024
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can challenge the communication of revised property tax without assailing the assessment order.
Whether reliance on tax amounts fixed for other residents is sufficient to prove discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
P.A.Nagavalli
The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation
The Zonal Officer
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
