The Application filed under Form-35 cannot be considered as a continuous unit of the previous assessment and the benefits of G.O.Ms. No.578 cannot be extended to Section 19(5).

1. The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai, First Respondent, bearing Procg. No.24191/99-D2, dated 10.11.2000 and direct the Respondents to treat the assessment with respect to the lands situate in S.Nos.1440/1, 1440/2, 1441/2, 1444/2, 1445, 1446/1 and 1446/2B, Block No.36, Ward No.1, Puliakulam Village, Coimbatore as a continuation of the earlier assessment and reduce the Urban Land Tax in proportion to the reduced land holding.

2. Facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:

The Petitioner-Company originally owned an extent of 137 grounds 1517 sq.ft of land in Race Course, Coimbatore. The details of which are given below:

Sl.No.

T.S.No.

Extent

1440/1

10 grounds 2380 sq.ft.

2

1440/2

12 grounds 2128 sq.ft.

16 grounds 0281 sq.ft.

1444/1

43 grounds 0472 sq.ft.

1444/2

23 grounds 2094 sq.ft.

2 grounds 2344 sq.ft.

1446/1

2 grounds 1298 sq.ft.

3

1441

4

5

6

1445

7

8

1446/2B

25 grounds 0123 sq.ft

Total

137 grounds 1517 sq.ft

3. The Petitioner has further submitted that the above lands were originally assessed to Urban Land Tax (in short “ULT”). In 1993, it was enhanced to Rs.97,300/- by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Collectorate Complex, Coimbatore, the 3rd Respondent, by his order, dated 11.11.1993. He adopted a market value of Rs.1,38,240/- per ground for the purpose of arriving at Tax and the amount of tax payable by the Petitioner was arrived at Rs.3,10,064/-. However, as per the Rules, the revision of tax was restricted to five times the earlier tax paid and consequently, the Urban Land Tax payable was fixed at Rs.97,300/- from Fasli 1401. Aggrieved by the same, an Appeal in U.L.T. A.No.36/94 was filed before the learned Principal Sub-Judge (Coimbatore Tribunal), challenging the market value adopted by the Third Respondent as well as the tax levied. When the Appeal was pending on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge Coimbatore, the 3rd Respondent, by order, dated 28.8.1997, revised the tax payable by the Petitioner and fixed the same at Rs.1,17,565/-, instead of Rs.97,300/-. This Revision was carried out by the 3rd Respondent on the ground that there was discrepancy in the earlier order, dated 11.11.1993, pertaining to the actual tax paid prior to Fasli 1401.

4. The Petitioner has further submitted that the land in respect of which, Urban Land Tax was levied, was promoted into a residential complex known as “Raheja Enclave” consisting of six blocks. Out of the six blocks, three blocks (now four blocks) each consisting of a ground and four floors, were completed and sold out to various purchasers. The three completed blocks (Blocks “A”, “B” and “C”) have been constructed over and above an extent of 23 grounds and 421 sq.ft. in the above mentioned property. In view of the sale in favour of various purchasers, the Company filed Form No.35 with the Third Respondent, giving him information about the sale of extent of 23 grounds and 421 sq.ft and consequently, sought for a proportionate reduction of Urban Land Tax for the aforesaid extent. They also sought for exemption of levy of Urban Land Tax with reference to 10 grounds 890 sq.ft, which has been gifted to the Corporation and an extent of 44 grounds 1680 sq.ft. earmarked for common amenities, like road, Lawn, etc. In all, the Petitioner-Company sought for reduction of Urban Land Tax in view of the above developments.

5. The Petitioner has further submitted that the said Exemption application in form No.35 was considered and accepted by the 3rd Respondent. Though a major extent of land held by the Petitioner-Company has been considerably reduced from 137 grounds 1517 sq.ft. to 59 grounds 0926 sq.ft., the 3rd Respondent has proceeded to further revise the tax to Rs.1,06,498/-. It is grievance of the Petitioner that the 3rd Respondent, instead of proportionately reducing the tax, has approached the assessment erroneously and fixed the