Disposed

Saroja v. The Commissioner of Municipality

Madras HC5 Jun 2024WP(MD)/2595/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the transfer of property tax assessment from the petitioner to the second respondent. The Court noted discrepancies in ownership titles and advised the Municipality to hear both parties before making a final order.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Saroja Vs The Commissioner of Municipality — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.2595 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.2595 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2357 & 2361 of 2023

Saroja

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Municipality, Pudukkottai Municipality Office, Pudukkottai Town, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

2.Kannagi ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 09.05.2022 bearing reference No.g.nfh.51/ng.kh.vz;.97/2002/m2 passed by the first respondent in the name of the second respondent and quashing the same and further directing the first respondent to restore the house tax assessment in the name of the petitioner in respect of Plot No.140 of M.M.A.Nagar, Pudukkottai Town.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 1 of 5_

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.2595 of 2023

¶16

For	Petitioner	: Mr.R.Paranjothi
For	R1	: Mr.S.Kameshwaran
		Standing Counsel
For	R2	: No appearance

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Although notice has been served on the contesting respondent i.e., second respondent and vakalat has been filed on behalf of the second respondent, there is no representation for the second respondent before this Court today.

¶19

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09.05.2022, bearing reference No.g.nfh.51/ng.kh.vz;. 97/2002/m2 passed by the first respondent, transferring the name for property tax assessment in respect of Plot No.140 of M.M.A.Nagar, Pudukkottai Town, from the petitioner's name to the second respondent's name.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent has filed O.S.No.158 of 2024 before the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai for a

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 2 of 5_

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.2595 of 2023

¶23

declaration that the subject property was that of the second respondent. It

¶24

is submitted that by a Judgment and Decree dated 12.12.2008, the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai has dismissed the said suit filed by the second respondent and a further appeal before this Court in A.S.(MD) No.210 of 2009 was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.02.2018.

¶25

Hence, it is submitted that the transfer of the property tax assessment in the second respondent's name, made by the first respondent warrants interference. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing the impugned order and a positive direction in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent.

¶27

Prima facie , it appears that the petitioner has been able to establish that the second respondent is not the owner of the property though there is a Sale Deed dated 14.10.1999 in favour of the second respondent. In case the petitioner wants to establish that the petitioner is

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 3 of 5_

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.2595 of 2023

¶30

the owner of the property, the petitioner has to produce necessary Sale

¶31

Deed before the first respondent.

¶32

The first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders for re-transfer of name for property tax assessment. Needless to state, the second respondent and the petitioner shall be heard before orders are passed.

¶33

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶34

05.06.2024

¶35

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order JEN

¶36

Copy To:

¶37

The Commissioner of Municipality, Pudukkottai Municipality Office, Pudukkottai Town, Pudukkottai District.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 5_

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.2595 of 2023

¶40

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶41

JEN

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.2595 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2357 & 2361 of 2023

¶43

05.06.2024

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 5 of 5_

Saroja v. The Commissioner of Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroja v. The Commissioner of Municipality

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

C.Senbaga Moorthi Vs The Additional Secretary

M/s. Arun Enterprises Vs The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Palaniappan Annamalai Vs The Assessment Unit

R.Jayalakshmi Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

S Anand Sathya Vs The Superintendent Of Cgst And Central Excise

Muthuramalingam Vs The Commissioner