Disposed

R.Murali, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC8 Jul 2026WP/24443/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners running a ladies hostel sought reclassification of their property tax assessment from commercial to residential usage and adjustment of excess tax paid. The court directed an enquiry by the corporation into whether a ladies hostel was actually run, with opportunity to petitioners and a speaking order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Enquiry directed into hostel usage; speaking order on re-classification within three months; no order as to costs.

R.Murali, Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 24443 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

WP No. 24443 of 2026 and WMP.No.26639 of 2026

¶7

R.Murali, S/o.M.Rajamanickam,

¶8

M.Indira

¶9

W/o.R.Murali, (Petitioners 1 & 2 are residing at C1, Visheswara Apartment, No.23/24, Vaikai 4th Street, KK Pudur, Coimbatore 641 035. ..Petitioners

¶10

¶11

1.The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore-641001.

¶12

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Ward No.04, North Zone, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore - 641 004.

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to reclassify the property tax assessment as “Residential Usage” for the Petitioner’s property situated at S.F. No. 85/8-B, Sathy Road Street (East), Saravanampatti Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District, bearing

¶15

Door Nos. 12A/1 to 12A/11, North Zone, Ward No. 004, under Assessment

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

WP No. 24443 of 2026

¶19

Nos. 162/004/907711, 162/004/907712, 162/004/907713 & 162/004/907714, which has been incorrectly classified as “Commercial Usage” and to adjust the excess property tax amount already remitted by the Petitioner under the commercial category towards future property tax liabilities, by considering the Petitioner’s representation dated 25.11.2025 and in light of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No.10194 of 2025 and batch dated 07.11.2025, within the time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶20

For Petitioners: Mr. S.Senthil For Respondents: Mr. M. Velmurugan Standing Counsel (Coimbatore Corporation)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Asserting that the petitioner is running a ladies hostel in the property situated at S.F. No. 85/8-B, Sathy Road Street, Saravanampatti Village, Coimbatore District from 2022, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to re-classify the property.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in a batch of cases wherein W.P.No.10194 of 2025 was the lead case. On that basis, he submits that the ladies hostel should be treated as a residential unit for purposes of payment of property tax.

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

WP No. 24443 of 2026

¶27

Mr. M. Velmurugan, learned Standing Counsel (Coimbatore Corporation), accepts notice for the respondents. He points out that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was carried in appeal. He adds that the said judgment holds that the decision cannot be applied mechanically to all cases and that prior verification is necessary.

¶28

At this juncture, it does not appear that an interim stay has been granted by the Division Bench of the judgment relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner. As correctly pointed out by learned standing counsel for the respondents, the principle laid down therein cannot be mechanically extended and requires a prior verification by the corporation so as to ascertain whether the petitioner is indeed running a ladies hostel as asserted.

¶29

For reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of on the following

¶30

terms:

¶31

(i) The second respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry to ascertain whether the petitioner is indeed running a ladies hostel from the relevant premises.

¶32

(ii) A reasonable opportunity shall be provided to the petitioner in such enquiry.

¶33

(iii) Upon conclusion thereof, a speaking order shall be issued in relation to the petitioner's request for re-classification within three months from the date

¶34

Page3 of 4

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

WP No. 24443 of 2026

¶37

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶38

¶39

of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

08-07-2026 Index:Yes/No (5/6) Neutral Citation:Yes/No KJ To

¶41

1.The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore-641001.

¶42

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Ward No.04, North Zone, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore - 641 004.

¶43

WP No. 24443 of 2026 (5/6)

¶44

__________ Page4 of 4

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Murali, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Murali, 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

International Courier Services Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer II

M/s.Cloud Interiors Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St), Porur Assessment Circle

R.Kanchana, Vs Ms. S.Madurantaki

Kumar Enterprises Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

V Kannan Vs The Assistant Commissioner

A Muthukrishnan Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer