Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(Mad) 834

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
The Kuzhithurai Municipality, Represented by its Commissioner, Vettuvanni
Versus
The Secretary of Kanyakumari Diocese (CSI), Nagercoil
C.R.P.NPD(MD) No.97 of 2008 to 116, 160 to 168, 219 to 222 and 340 to 359 and 413 of 2008
Decided On :Decided On : 06-03-2008

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:C. Raja Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent:K.N. Thambi, Sreekumaran Nair, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be sustained.

Headnote:
Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act - Validity of Appeals under Amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998 - Sections 81, 89 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, particularly the Amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998, and their applicability to property tax management. The court highlighted the non-notification of the amending Acts and their impact on the jurisdiction of the Taxation Appeals Committee and the District Judge. The court emphasized the relevance of Sections 81(2) and 89 of the Amending Acts and their applicability in the absence of notification.
Fact of the Case:

The Kuzhithurai Municipality filed Civil Revision Petitions to set aside a judgment and decree passed in various Civil Miscellaneous Appeals related to property tax assessment. The issue revolved around the validity of appeals under the Amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998, which were not notified. The respondent, owner of several shops, had been pursuing appeals against the tax assessment by the Municipality.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order passed by the District Judge in terms of Section 89 of the Amending Act was without jurisdiction due to the non-notification of the amending Acts. The court emphasized that the judgment and decree passed by the District Court were nullities as they lacked jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of appeals under the Amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998, which were not notified. The court also considered the jurisdiction of the Taxation Appeals Committee and the District Judge in light of the non-notification of the amending Acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. It cited the case of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan to support the conclusion that the judgment and decree passed by the District Court without jurisdiction cannot be sustained.
Final Decision: All the revision petitions were allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge were set aside. The court noted that both the petitioner and the respondent had been pursuing the matter under a misconception of law and made no order as to costs.

Judgment :-

The above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the Kuzhithurai Municipality to set aside the judgment and decree passed in various Civil Miscellaneous Appeals dated C.M.A.Nos.15 to 36, 38 to 61 of 2005 and 5 to 12 of 2006 dated 31.07.2007 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

2. When these Civil Revision Petitions came up for admission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Municipality referred to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, particularly to the provisions of the Amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998. It was stated that the said notice was issued under Rule 9 of Schedule IV of Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act, 1920 and confirmed by the Municipality. The matter was taken on appeal to the Taxation Appeal Committee in terms of Section 89 of the Amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998 and further appeal has been preferred to the District Court, Nagercoil in terms of Section 89(3) of the Amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998.

3. In one of the edition of the Madras Law Journal publication relating to the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, it is published as hereunder:

" To be read after the existing foot note 1 to Section 81 of the Act Government have not notified the date of coming into force of the Amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998. Till the amendment Acts are notified, by the Government, the erstwhile provisions relating to property tax in Section 81 to 91 would be in force."

A doubt arose as to whether the filing of appeal before the Taxation Appeals Committee and further appeal to the District Judge under Section 89(3) of the Amending Acts 65 of 1997 as amended by Act 34 of 1998 is valid as the said amending Act 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998 were not notified. Therefore, while issuing notice of admission to the respondent, this Court requested the Additional Advocate General Mr.T.Raja, to assist the Court and clarify the position with regard to the two Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Second Amendment) Act 65 of 1997 and Act 34 of 1998 and the consequence thereof.

4. Shri.T.Raja, the learned Additional Advocate General, the counsel for the Municipality Shri. Raja Kumar and the two of the counsel appearing for the respondent viz. Shri.K.N.Thambi and Shri.Sreekumaran Nair, submitted their arguments. Based on the arguments made by the respective counsel it become clear that the order under challenge passed by the District Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in terms of Section 89 of the Amending Act was one without jurisdiction. The issue in all the Civil Revision Petitions narrowed down to the question of law, as to whether the order under challenge is passed by a Court having jurisdiction and hence they are taken up for final disposal as the merits of the case will be of no relevance at the point of time.

5. The brief facts of the case of the revision petitioner:

The respondent is the owner of several shops in Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. They were assessed to property tax by the Municipality. A circular for general revision was issued by the Commissioner for Municipal Administration on 09.01.1993, which document was marked as Ex.R1, before the lower authority. As per Ex.R1 a direction to Municipal Councils and Township Committees was issued to take up quinquennial revision of property tax from 01.04.1993. As per the guidelines given under the Circular, in the year 1993 Special Notices were issued under Rule 9 of Schedule IV of Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act, 1920. On that earlier occasion the respondents herein filed Writ Petition No.19491 of 1994, challenging the notice issued by the Municipality seeking to enhance the tax in general revision. This Honble Court in the year 2001 set aside the individual notices issued by the municipality and remanded the matter to the Municipal authority on the ground that no reason has been given in the notice for general revision of tax. The Municipality was directed to issue fresh n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document