Point of Law: Assessment of property tax - If the lands fall nearby vicinity or adjacent or similar, then the same value can be adopted for the purpose of assessment of tax

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent dated 19.11.2016 in Ref.No.Na.Ka.17227/1997 LR-1 confirming levy of tax by the orders of the second respondent dated 13.04.1993 and errata dated 02.07.1993 vide Ref.No. ULT Case No.26/1401 to 42/1401 and errata dated 02.07.1993 vide ULT Case No.27 and 38/1401 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to pass revised orders in respect of lands covered by the above ULT Case No.26/1401 to 42/1401.)

1. The writ on hand is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 19.11.2016 confirming levy of tax by the orders of the second respondent dated 13.04.1993 and errata dated 02.07.1993 vide Ref.No. ULT Case No.26/1401 to 42/1401 and errata dated 02.07.1993 vide ULT Case No.27 and 38/1401 and quash the same and direct the respondents to pass revised orders in respect of lands covered by the above ULT Case No.26/1401 to 42/1401.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the lands in several Survey Numbers at Thiruvottiyur Village and the land belongs to the petitioner has been assessed by the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, by an order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 30.09.1977. The tax levied during the year 1975-76 was to an extent of Rs.20,000/-. The second respondent took into account about 281 grounds as total extent in about 16 survey numbers. The 2nd respondent exempted only three grounds under Section 29-A of the Act and levied tax for 278 grounds and 109 sq.ft. Admittedly, the Act was amended with effect from fasli 1401 i.e., 01.07.1991 and the market value of the property, as it existed from 01.07.1981, was to be adopted for the purpose of determining the market value before levying tax under the Urban Land Tax Act. The second respondent passed a revised order vide ULT.No.26 of 1401 to 42 of 1401 and passed an order of assessment on 13.04.1993. The total tax levied was Rs.1,09,064/- for an extent of about 278 grounds which was followed by an errata dated 02.07.1993 and the total tax was revised to Rs.98,346/- per fasli from fasli 1401.

3. Questioning the orders of the 2nd respondent regarding the assessment made, the writ petitioner filed an appeal to the Urban Land Tax Tribunal namely Sub-Judge, Chengalpet as per the provisions of the Act then existed and the Tribunal also confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated that in order dated 14.10.1977, the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, made a categorical finding that the trend of the sales in Balakrishna Nagar comprising of S.Nos.283 etc. it is more or less the value arrived at as per guidelines register. The value as per guidelines register is Rs.5000/- per ground, for the lands in Balakrishna Nagar. Thus, the Assistant Commissioner found the guidelines valuation is reasonable for the lands in Balakrishna Nagar and the similar lands. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings dated 13.03.1979, again made a finding holding that there has been a sale of one ground of land S.No.814/1D under Doc.No.1865 dated 15.09.1980 for a sum of Rs.91,000/-. As the land covered by the mentioned sale and case lands are almost similar, the Assistant Commissioner considered the sale price is just and reasonable. In the absence of any documentary evidence in support of the claim for lower value, the claim of the petitioner was rejected and accordingly, the market value was fixed at Rs.91,000/- per ground.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated that a specific ground is raised by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal filed before the Urban Land Tax Tribunal namely Sub-Judge, Chengalpet, wherein the petitioner has stated that the Assistant Com