Guidelines issued by Commissioner neither illegal nor unenforceable.

Somasundaram, J.

COMMON ORDER:

The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.1946 of 1994 and 3118 of 1994 is Dindigul Anna District Tax Payers Sangam represented by its President and they are filed for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the second respondent from enhancing the annual value of the property tax of the properties of the members of the petitioner’s Sangam pursuant to the notice issued by the second respondent to the members of the petitioner sangam under Rule 9/10 of Schedule IV to the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner in W.P. No.2160 of 1994 is the Trichy Town Properties Owners Welfare Association represented by its President and the said writ petition is filed praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that Rule 9-A of Schedule IV of the Taxation Rules hereinafter referred to as rules and the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Madras-5, dated 26. 1993 and the consequential revision sought to be made from the second half year of 1993-94 in respect of the properties owned by the members of the petitioner’s association as ultra vires, illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable insofar as the members of the petitioners association are concerned.

.2. According to the petitioner in W.P. Nos.1946 and 3118 of 1994 the second respondent served notice on the members of the petitioner sangam under Rule 9/ 10 of Schedule IV to the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) proposing to raise the annual value of the property on and from 10. 1993, that the second respondent propose to raise the annual value arbitrarily without adopting any yard-stick and proposed to fix the annual value more than two times and in some cases it is more than three times and that it is seen from the notices that they are special notices of property tax. However, the reason given for revising the annual value is that which keeps itself may not be a ground for increasing the tax is general revision of tax. The further case of the petitioner is that the basis on which the revision of property tax was effected is not at all mentioned in any one of the notices, that the second respondent issued the notices under Rule 9/10 of the Rules fixing the annual value not on the basis of the provisions of the Act and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, but on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, that the second respondent classified the entire town into four zones and fixed the basic value for each zone without any basis and also without taking into consideration the actual rental value of the property and therefore the proposed notices issued by the second respondent to enhance the property tax is arbitrary and without the authority of law. It is further averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions that the second respondent, for the years 1990-91 and 1991-1992 has revised the annual value without following the procedure prescribed under the act and that the second respondent has again issued the notices proposing to revise the tax from 10. 1993 and hence, the action of the second respondent in proposing to revise the property tax for the year 1993-94 by issuing a general notice is totally without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The petitioner in the writ petitions also challenge the revision of the property tax made by the 2nd respondent with effect from 10. 1993 on the grounds that in the notices issued by the 2nd respondent the reasons for the revision of property tax and the basis on which the revision has been made have not been disclosed, that before revising the annual value of the properties, the second respondent did not give any opportunity to the members of the petitionersangam to put forth their objections and that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent enhancing the property tax are contra