The main legal point established is the requirement to adhere to procedural fairness and provide the assessee with an opportunity to present objections and participate in the assessment process, as mandated by Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966.

These writ petitions are directed against the orders of the second respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, dated 05.03.1996 and 31.07.2001 in ULT.Case No.562/85 and 487/01 respectively, as confirmed by the first respondent, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai in the impugned orders dated 28.01.2005 and 01.02.2005 respectively.

2. Both the cases relate to urban land tax in respect of 39 grounds and 1120 sq.ft. and 39 grounds and 582 sq.ft. in Injambakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk respectively. The relief sought for is for directing the respondents to treat the above said lands as falling outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act,1966.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the land comprised in Survey No.165/180 measuring about 39 grounds 1120 sq.ft., which is the subject matter of W.P.No.11676 of 2008 is used only for agricultural operations and was assessed to urban land tax by the second respondent in ULT Case No.562 of 1985 and a sum of Rs.729/- was levied for fasli 1385. That was questioned by way of revision before the first respondent, who by order dated 09.09.1998, remanded the matter to the second respondent and after remand, the second respondent in ULT Case No.288/1401 dated 03.09.2001, levied urban land tax from fasli 1401 corresponding to the calender year 1991, and the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent under Section 30 of the Urban Land Tax Act,1966, and by the impugned order dated 28.01.2005, the first respondent directed the second respondent to issue an erratum to levy tax from the year 1986 instead of 1975 and to that extent the revision was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed review before the first respondent on the ground that the land falls under the category of “open space recreational zone”, in which any construction is banned by G.O.Ms.No.190 dated 23.02.1980 and an open space theatre was constructed after obtaining special permission from the Government and the portion occupied by the theatre is a very small built up area and the theatre is run in the name, Prarthana Theatre with office hall and screening area and the rest of the land is kept vacant and the entire area is agricultural land. The said review was dismissed by the first respondent on 04.08.2005.

3(a). In the meantime, the second respondent passed an erratum on 10.03.2005, levying tax from fasli 1396 to 1400, against which the writ petition is filed. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition with delay and the reason for the delay is stated to be that the previous counsel to whom the papers were entrusted misplaced the same and after the bundle was traced, the writ petition was filed.

3(b). The challenge to the assessment is made on the ground that the land is not coming within the term, “urban land” since it is not kept for being used as house site and urban land excludes specifically agricultural lands and horticultural lands and lands of other character. It is stated that the first respondent has even noted that casuarina trees were raised in the land for faslis 1397 to 1411 and therefore, the construction of the building was not possible and the said fact has not been taken note of. It is stated that the constructed area occupies only about 3 grounds and rest of the land has been used for parking cars in the open air theatre and the area falls under the “open space recreational zone”, as per the CMDA Rules. It is stated that the open space recreational zone is not termed as urban land and therefore the levy of urban land tax is illegal.

4. Likewise, the land to the extent of 39 grounds and 582 sq.ft. in Injambakkam village, Tambaram Taluk, which is the subject matter of W.P.No.11677 of 2008 is comprised in Survey No.1/48, is stated to be used for agricultural operations. It is stated that the second respondent in the order dated 18.01.1996 held that the land is not taxable as it is agricultural lands and thereafter, the