The decision emphasizes the remedy available for contesting tax assessments and the duty of municipal authorities to act upon valid requests.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ, Order or direction quashing Ext.P7.

ii. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P8 application submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time fixed by this Hon’ble Court iii. Issue appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that the Municipality is not entitled to demand the payment of arrears of tax beyond three years iv. Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to change the entry in the assessment register of the Municipality with respect to the building (old Number 20/309(2001)

new number 25/299(2013) owned by the petitioner into his name v. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to consider Exhibit P9 appeal submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time fixed by this Hon’ble Court vi. To dispense with the petitioner to produce the translations of the vernacular documents vii. Issue such other writ, orders, or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

(SIC)

2. It is submitted that the petitioner owns a shop room within the local limits of the respondent Municipality. It was constructed by the father of the petitioner along with his partner is the submission. The partnership was dissolved in the year 1988 and when the partnership was dissolved, the father of the petitioner applied to the Municipality to assess his portion of the building in his name is the further submission. Subsequently, the father of the petitioner died. Even after repeated request and applications, the Municipality is not changing the entry in the assessment register is the further submission. Hence, this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 which according to the petitioner is an arrear demand notice from 2016-17 to 2024-25. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 objection to the same. The petitioner also submitted an appeal before the 3^rd respondent against Ext.P7 arrear demand notice issued, as evident by Ext.P9 is the further submission. Even then, there is no action from the authorities concerned is the grievance of the petitioner.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is filed.

3. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality submitted that the tax assessed is revised on 05.07.2025 and a fresh demand notice is issued to the petitioner. As per the new demand notice, the tax is re- assessed and reduced to Rs.83,486/- instead of Rs.3,26,599/- shown in Ext.P7.

4. If that be the case, this writ petition need not be retained here. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the new assessment order, the petitioner can challenge the same, in accordance with law.

With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-