The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for government authorities to follow rules and procedures in the issuance of property tax receipts, and the potential consequences of uni-lateral changes leading to corruption.

Heard the arguments of Ms. S. Karpakavarthini, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Neelakantan, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.G.T.Subramaniam, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to issue property tax receipts in respect of the property in premises bearing New No.51, Old No.38/1 Perumal Koil garden 2nd Lane, Chennai79 from the 1st half financial year 2009 -2010 in the name of all the legal heirs of Sambanda Mudaliar and further directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to record the names of all legal heirs in the tax receipts even in the receipts issued already in the name of the 4th respondent alone.

3. Notice was directed to be issued to all the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner has served notice on all the respondents including the fourth respondent. Proof of service has been filed. The fourth respondent despite notice did not appear before this Court.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the premises in question was constructed by his forefather on lease hold land belonging to Sri Chenna Kesava Perumal Koil and the building belonged to his father M.Sambanda Mudaliar who having acquired it from a partition deed dated 21.01.1957. Ever since that date, his father was regularly paying the property tax in his name. The petitioners father M.Sambanda Mudaliar died on 21.05.1990, leaving behind his wife S.Indirani Ammal, the petitioner and four other brothers M/s.S.Anbazhagan, S.Rathinavelu, S.Rajasekaran, S.Elango and two sisters M/s.Neelavathi, S.Geetha Bai to succeed to his property. After the death of his father, all the legal heirs became the joint owners of the property.

5. In the mean while, the fourth respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner had started paying property tax in his name alone instead of in the name of all legal heirs. The respondents 2 and 3 without verifying the records started issuing receipts in the name of the fourth respondent. They also did not insist on production of legal heirship certificate in respect of the heirs of late Sambanda Mudaliar. They did not follow any procedure. When the petitioner questioned the action of the fourth respondent, he gave evasive reply. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 15.05.2009 to the third respondent and requested to take appropriate action. The petitioner after taking recourse to Right to Information Act sought for the copies of the property tax receipts issued by the respondents. When the respondents were not taking action, he came to file the present writ petition.

6. When the matter came up on 25.11.2009, this Court directed the third respondent to appear and explain as to why he had started issuing tax receipts in the name of fourth respondent to the detriment of all the legal heirs. Accordingly, on 03.12.2009, the third respondent appeared and attempted to give some explanation. By an order dated 03.12.2009, he was directed to file an affidavit with reference to the steps proposed to be taken by him on the grievance projected by the petitioner. Subsequently, on 08.12.2009, the original file relating to the issue was directed to be produced. Initially, the third respondent gave written remarks dated 07.12.2009 stating that as per the Rules, the name transfer can be mutated only after production of documents such as Sale Deed or Settlement Deed and in case of inheritance of property only after production of death certificate and legal heirship certificate. It was stated that in the case of petitioner, the then officer mutated only after verifying any one of the documents. If the petitioner now applies for mutation with any of the above documents, the respondents will act in accordance with law. It was further stated that if the petitioner produces any valuable document, the earlier mutation order will be cancelled and fresh orders will be issued as per Rules