ORDER :

1. The orders passed by the 1st respondent under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'], imposing tax and rejecting the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner / Airport Authority of India are under challenge in the present writ petitions.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a Statutory organization under the administrative control of Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation. The petitioner manages the Civil Airports and Civil Enclaves at Defence Airports across the country. The petitioner holds certain lands in the Villages of Pazhavanthangal, St. Thomas Mount, Cowl Bazaar and Porur and the said lands were assessed to the second respondent (Alandur Zone). As against the levy of Urban Land Tax by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed Revision Petitions before the 1st respondent under Section 30(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act 1966. The first respondent rejected the Revision Petitions in orders dated 28.03.2008, 28.03.2008, 03.04.2008 and 11.11.2013 respectively.

3. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that Section 29 of the Act contemplates Exemptions. Accordingly, nothing in the said Act shall apply to any urban land owned by the State or the Central Government. The petitioner / Airport Authority of India is wholly owned by the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviations and therefore, the said exemption clause would be applicable to the petitioner and consequently, the impugned orders, levying tax are in violation of the exemption clause provided under Section 29 of the Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the Airport Authority of India is a creation by an Act of Parliament and the Act provides for transfer and vesting of the undertakings of the International Airports Authority of India and National Airports Authority of India. It was also aimed for the better administration and cohesive management of Airports and Civil Enclaves across the country, where transport services were operated or to be operated and covers all aeronautical communication stations and for the purpose of establishing or assisting in the establishment of Airports. Therefore, the petitioner is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as its functions are directly controlled by the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

5. Keeping in mind these parameters, it is contended that the levy of urban land tax by the Assistant Commissioner is directly hit under Section 29(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act. The respondents have not considered any of these aspects with reference to Section 29 of the Act and levied tax and the first respondent / Revisional authority also failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is to be construed as Central Government for the purpose of grant of exemption under Section 29 of the Act.

6. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 455, wherein the Apex Court made an observation that “It is clear from a reading of sub-section (1) of Section 119 that lands and buildings which are the properties of the Union are exempt from property tax” and in paragraph 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made the following observations:

“8. From the aforesaid discussion, it clearly follows that the land in question being exempt from tax by virtue of Section 119(1) of the Act as it is the property of the Union and furthermore even under Section 120(1) no tax in respect of land could have been levied in the present case on the appellant prior to the same being let to them in 1997.”

7. Accordingly, in the said case, the appeal filed by the Housing and Urban Corporation Limited was allowed. Relying on the said judgme