IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Special Original Jurisdiction )

Friday, the Twenty Fifth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two

PRESENT

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

WMP.NOS.29029 AND 29030 OF 2021

IN WP.NO.27502 OF 2021

L.R.RAJA [PETITIONER IN BOTH THE PETITIONS]

Vs

1 THE COMMISSIONER [RESPONDENTS IN BOTH THE PETITIONS]

GREATER CHENNAI CORPORATION,

RIPPON BUILDING, CHENNAI-600 003

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

GREATER CHENNAI CORPORATION ZONE-XIV,

PERUNGUDI, NO.6/64,PUZHUTHIVAKKAM MAIN ROAD,

CHENNAI-600 091

3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER

GREATER CHENNAI CORPORATION ZONE-XIV

PERUNGUDI, NO.6/64,PUZHUTHIVAKKAM MAIN ROAD,

CHENNAI-600 091

4 THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER

GREATER CHENNAI CORPORATION ZONE-XIV,

PERUNGUDI, NO.6/64,PUZHUTHIVAKKAM MAIN ROAD,

CHENNAI-600 091

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and

in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to

stay all further proceedings pursuant to assessment and demand made

in online notice and notice affixed on wall dated 03.09.2021 in a

sum of INR 15,28,380/- (WMP.NO.29029/2021) pending disposal of the

WP.NO.27502/2021 and;

ii) To direct the respondents 2 to 4 to return the sum of INR

2,16,680/- paid by the petitioner on account of property tax for

II-2013-2014 and I-2014-2015 vide receipt Nos.18313 dated

11.11.2013

and

102449

dated

30.09.2014

respectively,

(WMP.NO.29030/2021) pending disposal of the WP.NO.27502/2021.

Order : This Miscellaneous petitions coming on this day for

hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in

support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.C.JOHNSON,

Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions, the court made

the following order:-

The petitioner had applied for constructing a commercial

complex with the erstwhile Ulnagaram Puzhuthivakkam Municipality on

16.06.2011. The petitioner was also given a planning permission by

the Puzhuthivakkam Panchayat. Subsequently,Puzhuthivakkam Panchayat

came within the purview of Chennai Corporation in the year 2013 and

therefore the construction put up by the petitioner came within the

purview of the CMDA. On inspection, the CMDA found that the

petitioner had deviated and made additional construction of 600

Sq.ft in the 3^rd floor, though the permission granted on 16.06.2011

was stilt plus two floors.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on

19.09.2013 the property was put on lock and seal and demolition

notice was issued by the CMDA. It is submitted that the petitioner

had also approached this Court in W.P.No.33418 of 2013 which came

to be disposed, pursuant to which the petitioner preferred an

Appeal before the Government and further the appeal is stated to be

pending before the appropriate Authority.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though

the petitioner opted to get property assessed and paid property tax

for the 2^nd half of 2013-14 and 1^st half of 2014-15, it is submitted

that the property has been under lock and seal since 19.09.2013 and

therefore, the property cannot be subjected to tax after the

property was put under lock and seal with effect from 18.11.2013

pursuant to lock and seal notice dated 19.09.2013 of CMDA.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

property is not fetching any rent, though it was intended to lease

to ICICI Bank for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- during 2013. It is

submitted that as per Section 100 of the Chennai City Municipal

Corporation Act, 1919 tax is to be paid on the Gross Annual rent at

which at the time of assessment and since the property is under

lock and seal since 2013 there is no justification in taking

property tax from the petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention

to Regulation 20 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development Building

Rules 2019.