IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 01.07.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.No.16706 of 2022 &

WMP.Nos.16014 & 16015 of 2022 S.Pawan Kumar … Petitioner Vs

1.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Vellore, National Highway 234 Bridge, Vellore, Officer’s Line Fort Round Road, Intersection, Balaji Nagar, Vellore, Tamil Nadu – 632 004.

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Vellore Town Panchayat, Zone-4, Ward 57, National Highway 234 Bridge, Vellore, Officer’s Line Fort Round Road, Intersection, Balaji Nagar, Vellore, Tamil Nadu – 632 004. 3.The Executive Officer, Shembakkam Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Vellore. … Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand notice dated 24.05.2022 in property tax Assessment No.035/057/01554 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue fresh property tax demand notice in accordance with law and after calculating the correct assessment with respect to the petitioner’s property at No.35/141, Banglore Road, Shembakkam, Vellore.

For Petitioner : Ms.Subhashini For Chennai Law Associates For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Prabhu – R1 Mrs.C.Sangamithirai, Special Government Pleader – R2 Mr.V.M.Ravi Chandran, Special Government Pleader – R3

O R D E R

Mr.P.S.Prabhu, learned counsel who accepts notice for R1/the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Vellore, submits that the post of third respondent, the Executive Officer, Shembakkam Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Vellore, does not presently exist insofar as it stands integrated with the post of Assistant Commissioner, Vellore Town Panchayat, arrayed as R2. Mrs.C.Sangamithirai, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for R2.

2. The petitioner has challenged a demand of vacant land tax under Vellore District Municipal Corporation Act, 2008 in regard to the property at No.35/141, Bangalore Road, Shembakkam, Vellore (property in question). According to the petitioner, he has recently come into ownership and possession of the property.

3.The impugned demand arises for the period 1999-2000 to 2021-

2022 for a period of 23 years. The agreed position appears to be that, annual tax was being levied initially, at the rate of Rs.17,850/-. It has subsequently been enhanced to a sum of Rs.44,628/- from 2008-2009 onwards.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that disputes have been raised by the erstwhile owner in regard to the quantification of the demands and the assessments even earlier, but these requests for revision of assessments/representations of the erstwhile owner have not been looked into by the authorities.

5.Learned counsel for the respondents state that they have obtained some instructions in the matter, but none in relation to whether the authorities have undertaken an inspection of the property in question. They are also not armed with any specific instructions in regard to whether any assessments have been framed pursuant to which the enhanced demands have been raised.

6. For the above reasons, and bearing in mind the interests of both parties, the following directions are issued:

(i) the petitioner is directed to pay the original demand of sum of Rs.17,850/- for a period of 24 years, that includes the period 2022-2023, amounting to a sum of Rs.4,28,400/-, within a period of two (2) weeks from today.

Upon condition that direction in (i) is complied with, (ii) The impugned demand is set aside and R1 will inspect the property in question after issuing notice to the petitioner.

(iii) The petitioner shall be afforded opportunity to put forth his contentions in regard to the assessments including the enhancement, and orders of assessment shall be passed thereafter computing the tax to be paid. Such assessments shall be framed in accordance with law and all applicable Rules and Regulations.

(iv) The exercise of inspection and assessment, as above, shal