Owner includes company includes in liquidation also.

RAJU J.

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated May 14, 1977, and that of the second respondent-Tribunal dated January 7, 1982. The order of the first respondent is one made under the provisions of section 11 read with sections 5C and 40A of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), whereunder the first respondent assessed the writ petitioner who is the official liquidator of Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. to a tax of Rs. 47, 112.50 for each Fasli commencing from Fasli 1385, in respect of urban lands measuring about 276.0662 sq. ft. and 80, 170 sq. ft. in T. S. Nos. 34 and 3756/1 of block 74 of Sembiam and Mylapore villages, which stand registered in the name of the said Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd., which is at present under liquidation. Aggrieved against the said order of assessment, the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent-Tribunal and, by an order dated dated January 7, 1982, the second respondent-Tribunal confirmed the order of the first respondent and rejected the appeal. Thereupon, this writ petition has been filed.

Mr. M. S. Sundararajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the following contentions before me at the time of hearing of the writ petition.

(1) The company in question is under liquidation and is in the custody of the official liquidator. Such a company under liquidation has no juristic personality and, after the orders of winding up, the company cannot be considered to be the owner of the lands and, consequently, the assessment of the properties of the company in the hands of the liquidator is without the authority of law ;

(2) The assets of the company under liquidation belong to the entirety of the shareholders and contributories and even assuming without admitting that the properties in question can be the assets of the company, under the Act, there cannot be a single assessment as though the properties still belong to the company and, if at all, the liability has to be determined only with reference to the number of persons who are entitled to the assets of the company. According to learned counsel, the proceedings are vitiated in this regard also.(3) The provisions of section 2(10) of the Act, which defines 'owner' do not refer specifically to a 'company under liquidation' and, consequently, the petitioner cannot be subjected to the levy under the Act ;

(4) The properties in question are also the subject-matter of proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, and, if the lands are ultimately to vest with the Government, there is no justification to saddle the company with the liability for tax under the Act in respect of the very same properties ; and

(5) Regarding the market value fixed, the authorities have not taken into account the offer made by the Government to take the properties at the rate of Rs. 6, 000 per ground. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the value now arrived at cannot be sustained in the light of the said offer, made by the Government itself.

Mr. R. Lokapriya, the learned Government advocate, while refuting the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the company under liquidation is also liable to tax under the Act in respect of its properties, that the definition of the word "owner" as contained in section 2(10) of the Act is wide enough to include and take within its fold even a company under liquidation, though not specifically referred to, that till the properties are actually distributed and ownership disrupted, it is up to the Department to make a single assessment treating the properties as belonging to the company and that, at any rate, till the properties are acquired under the Tamil Nadu Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and vested with the State Government, the liability to tax under the Act in ques