Ramaswamy Konar vs The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax and The Special Tahsildar, Urban Land Tax (Collection)

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondents.

It has been stated by the petitioner that he is the owner of the property in S. No. 392 of Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore, having obtained an extent of

74 cents in a partition suit, in O.S. No. 234 of 1975, on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore. The said land has been an agricultural land both at

the time of its partition and even thereafter. Since agricultural lands are excluded from the levy of Urban Land Tax, the land held by the petitioner

was not subject to the assessment and levy of Urban Land Tax. While so, the second respondent had passed an order of assessment, for an extent

of 11 grounds and 1080 sq.ft., vide ULT. Case No. 26/KMR/1391, dated 20.3.93. The petitioner had not been served with the notice under

Form 4(C), or the assessment order. However, the third respondent had made a demand, on 6.11.98, directing the petitioner to pay tax from fasli

1398 to 1408. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred a revision, u/s 30 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, before the first respondent. The

first respondent had granted stay of the collection of Urban Land Tax. While so, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 1892/- to the third

respondent, by cash, without prejudice to his rights, as per order of the first respondent, dated 30.7.99.

The main contention raised by the petitioner before the first respondent was that the land in question was an agricultural land till it was sold in the

year 1984. However, the first respondent, without considering the character of land and the sales effected by the petitioner, dismissed the revision

petition. In such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that under the scheme of the Tamilnadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, the Urban

Land, defined u/s 2(13) of the Act, is liable for levy of tax, either u/s 10 or u/s 11 of the said Act. After an order of assessment is passed, a copy

of the assessment shall be served on the owners by the Urban Land Officer, such as the third respondent. Thereafter, the Urban Land Tax Officer

is expected to serve a notice of demand on the assessee. Section 15 of the Act states that the third respondent shall serve a separate notice of

demand for every fasli year. The order passed u/s 10 or 11 and the demand made u/s 14 may be subject to challenge u/s 30 of the Act. u/s 30, a

revision shall be filed by the assessee before the first respondent and the first respondent is empowered to modify, annul, reverse, order or remit

the matter back for reconsideration. The petitioner has further stated that the demand notice, dated 6.11.98, had been served on the petitioner and

he had filed a revision before the concerned authority, on 9.12.1998. It has also been stated that the land which was agricultural in character had

been sold by the petitioner, in the year 1984, to third parties. The first respondent, relying on the inspection report of the second respondent, had

stated that the land in question is not agricultural in character. Even if the character of the land had been changed subsequent to its sale in the year

1984, it was open to the respondents to proceed against the present owners of the land, who are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

However, the order of assessment, passed against the petitioner by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent, cannot be

sustained. The liability of the petitioner to pay the tax had been extinguished on the date of the sale of the land and the names of the transferees

have also been incorporated in the concerned revenue records.

The learned Counsel had also stated that the third respondent cannot issue a single demand for several faslis since it is prohibited u/s 15 of the

Act. Therefore, the consolidated notice of demand, issued against the the petitioner cannot be sustained. Further, according to Section 14 of the

Act, details of assessment, extent, survey number etc., are to be given in the demand notice. However, such details were missing in the demand

notice issued by the third respondent.

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

Even though various grounds have been raised challenging the impugned proceedings of the respondents, the main contention of the learned

Counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question was an agricultural land till it was sold by the petitioner, in the year 1984, to third parties. The

impugned orders have been passed by the respondents without considering the character of the land and its subsequent sale by the petitioner to

third parties. No notice had been served on the petitioner, under Form 4(C) before the assessment had been made, and no assessment order had

been served on the petitioner. When the third respondent had made a demand, on 6.11.98, directing the petitioner to pay tax from fasli 1398 to

1408, the petitioner had preferred a revision, u/s 30 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, before the first respondent. The first

respondent, without considering the character of the land and the fact that the petitioner had sold the lands to third parties, in the year 1984, had

dismissed the revision, arbitrarily, without following the procedures established by law and the principles of natural justice.

At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if this Court is

pleased to set aside the impugned order, dated 16.11.2000, passed by the revisional authority and if the petitioner is permitted to file his objections

before the second respondent, along with the relevant records, to show that he is not the owner of the land in question and if the second

respondent is directed to pass orders thereon, within a stipulated period, by assessing, afresh, the tax liability of the petitioner, with regard to the

land in question.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order.

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as for the respondents and on a perusal of the

records available before this Court, the impugned order of the revisional authority, dated 16.11.2000, is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file

his objections before the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with the relevant

records to show that he is not the owner of the property in question. On receipt of the objections from the petitioner, the second respondent is

directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the objections, after assessing, afresh, the

tax liability of the petitioner, with regard to the land in question.

The writ petition is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above. No costs.