R.P. Sarathy vs The Assistant Commissioner

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner / Managing Director of Narasus Coffee Company, a firm registered under Partnership Act, challenges

the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal, Salem, dismissing the appeal S.R.16/99 (ULTA 14/1993), filed by the Petitioner, against order

made by the Assistant Commissioner-ULT, Salem.

The firm of the Petitioner owns the following urban lands at Salem:

i) T.S.No.2 41 grounds & 1139 sq.ft.

ii) T.S.No.3 70 grounds & 1771 sq.ft.

iii) T.S.No.12 198 grounds & 1782 sqft.

The market value of the land in T.S. No. 2 & 3 was assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per ground, and for land in T.S. No. 12 at Rs. 3,000/-per ground.

The Petitioner, on the basis of market value assessed, paid the tax for the revenue year from 1381 to 1400.

The market value of the land of the Petitioner was revised for the revenue year 1401 by the competent authority, i.e. the Assistant

Commissioner as under:

i) T.S.No.2 & 3 Rs.10,400 per ground

ii) T.S.No.12 Rs. 8,400 per ground

The Petitioner, by claiming that market value of the land was arbitrarily fixed without adhering to the principles, laid down under the Act,

challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner by filing appeal in ULTA No. 15 and 16 of 1993 qua T.S. No. 2 & 3. The Petitioner also

challenged revised market value for T.S. No. 12, vide ULTA 14/1983.

It is pertinent to note that all the properties were assessed by the Commissioner by one single order. Learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Salem,

exercising the powers of the Urban Land Tax Tribunal in appeal ULTA Nos. 15 and 16 of 1993, on appreciation of the record and considering

respective submissions of the parties, recorded the finding that market value was revised arbitrarily, without adhering principles, laid down for

fixation of market value. The appeals were accepted and case was remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner / competent authority to

reassess market value by adhering principles, laid down under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966.

On reconsideration of the matter, the Assistant Commissioner assessed market value of property at T.S. Nos. 2 & 3 as Rs. 4,800 and the said

order has attained finality.

Appeal against the assessment of revised market value of T.S. No. 12, came up for hearing before the District Revenue Officer, Salem, acting

as Urban Land Tax Tribunal.

The Learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal by holding that the Assistant Commissioner had determined the market value on the basis of sales in

T.S. Nos. 3,4,5,6 in the same block i.e. ''B'' in Ward 11 of Komarasamypatty Village, as per the principles laid down under the Act.

The Petitioner challenged the impugned revision of market value, qua T.S. No. 12, firstly on the ground that impugned order of the learned

appellate authority was without jurisdiction, having been passed by the District Revenue Officer, Salem, exercising jurisdiction of Urban Land Tax

Tribunal.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that the Tribunal stands defined u/s 12 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966

to be the Tribunal constituted u/s 4 of the said Act.

Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, reads as under:

Constitution of Tribunals:

(1) The Government shall constitute as many Tribunals as may be necessary for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Each Tribunal shall consist of one person only who shall be a Judicial Officer not below the rank of Subordinate Judge.

(3) Each Tribunal shall have such jurisdiction as the Government may, by notification, from time-to-time determine.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that the appointment of District Revenue Officer, Salem as Urban Land Tax

Tribunal was contrary to provision of Section 4 of the Act, as it is only a Judicial Officer, not below the rank of Subordinate Judge, who could be

appointed as Tribunal. District Revenue Officer could not be appointed as Tribunal, therefore, order, on the face of it, is without jurisdiction.

Second contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that by way of a single order, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order of

refixation of market value in respect of properties belonging to the firm i.e. T.S. Nos. 2, 3 and 12 and once this order was set aside by duly

constituted Tribunal with regard to property for only T.S. No. 2 and 3, it was not open to the Tribunal to take contrary view with respect to third

property. The earlier finding operated as resjudicata, being between the same parties.

Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand, supported the order by contending that reading of

the order of learned appellate Court shows that principle laid down under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, were duly followed, as

valid reason has been given for upholding the order.

The contention of the learned Government Advocate was that market value was assessed on the basis of sale deed with respect to properties

in the same Ward, thus documentary evidence was available on record and no error, therefore, can be found with the appellate order or that of

Assistant Commissioner.

It was also the contention of the learned Government Advocate that once three appeals were filed, they were required to be independently

adjudicated, the learned appellate authority committed no error in dismissing the appeal by giving valid reasons.

On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966,

gives power to the State Government to constitute Urban Land Tax Tribunal, who has to be a Judicial Officer not below the rank of Subordinate

Judge.

In view of specific provision u/s 4 of the Act, it is not open to the State Government to constitute Urban Land Tax Tribunal, from the officers

of the Revenue department, unless or until, the act is modified.

In exercise of delegated legislation, it is not open to the delegatee to act against the basic Act. Constitution of the Tribunal, being contrary to

provisions of the act, the orders passed would be without jurisdiction and consequently, impugned order is held to be passed by the authority

having no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

The second contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also deserves to be accepted. It is well settled law that authorities cannot pass

contradictory order. Once the impugned order qua T.S. No. 2 & 3 was set aside by the learned Urban Tax Tribunal, it was not open to the

successor tribunal to take different view totally contrary to the one taken earlier by upholding the order, which stood set aside previously. The

finding in earlier proceeding operated as resjudicata in third appeal. In view of the fact that very impugned order, which was passed with respect to

three properties, was set aside qua two of the properties.

For the reasons stated, writ petition is allowed. The impugned appellate order and the order of Assistant Commissioner are set aside.

The case is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner to reassess the market value of the property T.S. No. 12 in accordance with law

for the revenue year 1401. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

The amount deposited by the Petitioner under orders of this Court on 21.03.2002, as a condition for grant of interim stay, shall be adjusted

towards the tax amount, which may be assessed against the Petitioner on reconsideration of market value.