Madras Urban Land Tax Act (XXXIV of 1963) if liable to be struck down under Article 14 as discriminatory.

The petitioners, who are affected by the provisions of the Madras Urban Land Tax Act, 1963 (Madras Act XXXIV of 1963), assail its validity on grounds of legislative incompetency to enact it and of violation of constitutional limitations. The petitions are by different owners of urban lands in the City of Madras to quash the notification either under section 9 or under section 16(3) of the Act, in so far as they relate to the petitioners, or the levy and demand of tax on some of them under its provisions. To deal with the legal contentions, it will suffice to mention the facts in one or two petitions, as the facts in almost all the petitions are related and of more or less similar pattern, except as to particular owners, the locality of the lands in different zones and sub-zones and their character and market value. If it is necessary, reference will be made to other specific facts in disposing of the prayer for quashing of the urban land tax and Settlement Schmes prepared and published under the Act.

In W. P. No. 1614 of 1964, the petitioner is the owner of property in R. S. No. 1693/1, Mylapore, its area being 4 cawnies 1 ground and 1595 square feet. The building on the land bears several door numbers in Luz Church Road, Royapettah High Road and Veerabhadran Street, Mylapore. By a notification dated 7th October, 1964, the Act has been extended to the area of Mylapore, among the various other areas in the city, and he has been, pursuant to the Notification, included in the provisional list of assessees as per section 16(3) of the Act and Rule 6(3) of the Madras Urban Land Tax Rules, 1963; and the list, among other particulars, contains a description of the extent of the land in respect of which the petitioner is liable to pay urban land tax. Under sections 17 to 21, the inclusion of his name in the provisional list of the assessees would lead to demand of tax from him. After making reference to various sections of the Act, the petitioner submits that the basis of the levy of urban land tax, as provided under that Act, is arbitrary and leads to discrimination. The tax is levied under the charging provision not on the actual market value of such urban land, but on the average value of lands in a locality. For the purpose of taxation, the entire area in a sub-zone is taken as a unit and the tax so arrived at for the locality is distributed among the owners on the basis of the extents owned by each owner in the locality, with the result that a person owning a piece of a very inferior land of small value in a sub-zone, where the average value of the land is very much more, will be made to pay tax not on the value of his land, but on the market value of lands of others. The average market value, which is taken into account, is the gross value and not the net value and the net value of one owner will be different from the net value of another owner. Further, the only objections, which are contemplated under the Act, are the objections relating to the draft settlement scheme prepared under section 8 of the Act and can relate either to the delimitation of sub-zone or to the average market value of the land of the particular assessee. The provision for objections under sections 9 and 12 is merely farcical. There is also no provision for objecting to a particular land being treated as ‘urban land’. The definition of ‘urban land’ leaves to the arbitrary determination by the Urban Tax Authorities the question ‘whether a particular land is capable of being used as a building site; and there is also no warrant in excepting from the definition any land which is registered as wet in the Revenue Account of the Government and used for the cultivation of wet crops. It is not the registry that distinguishes an urban land from a non-urban land. The remedies provided under sections 11 to 13 of the Act are illusory and further there is no provision in the Act by which the assessee can have the correct market value of his urban land asse