IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.Nos.46890 and 46911 of 2025

1.U.Subramaniam

2. S.U.Suresh ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

2. The Assistant Revenue Officer, Zone 13, Division 140, Greater Corporation of Chennai, No.115, Dr.MuthulakshmiSalai, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2^nd Respondent and quash the same and direct the Respondents to fix the revised property tax in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 100 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and after affording the Petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity and proceed in accodance with the law for the re-fixation of property tax for the premises at No.5(9) Kottur Garden Link Road, Kottur Garden, Kottur, Chennai 600 085.

For Petitioners : M/s.Vasudha Thiagarajan For Respondents : M/s.P.T.Ramadevi, Standing Counsel ***************

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the Demand Notice dated 07.11.2024 pursuant to the assessment made in Form 4 under Rule

269(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023.

2. By the impugned demand notice, the petitioner has been called upon to pay arrears of property tax for the period of first half of 2023–2024 amounting to a sum of Rs. 25,085/- along with Rs. 252/- towards Interest / Late Fee. In total, an amount of Rs. 25,227/- has been demanded from the petitioner.

3. The challenge to the impugned demand notice dated 07.11.2024 in Form–4 issued under Rule 269(1) of the aforesaid Rules is on the ground that no prior intimation / Notice was issued to the petitioner before revising the property tax.

4. It is submitted that by the learned counsel for the petitioner as per Rule 116 of the aforesaid Rules, a notice seeking revision of property tax ought to have been issued to the petitioner before revising the tax rates and issuing a Demand Notice.

5. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents in Paragraph Nos. 8, 9, and 10, it has been stated as follows:-

“8. I respectfully submit that the Government of Tamil Nadu has passed a Government Order vide G.O.Ms.No.53, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.IV) Deparment dated 30.03.2022 based on the recommendation of the 15^th Central Finance Commission and increased the property tax for the residential and non-residential buildings. Further, pursuant to the above Government Order vide G.O.Ms.No.53, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.IV) Department dated 30.03.2022 the Greater Chennai Corporation has called for objections from the general public. After carefully considering the objections of the general public a Council Resolution was passed by the Council Greater Chennai Corporation vide Resolution No.63/2022 dated 30.05.2022 by enhancing the property tax within the limits of the Greater Chennai Corporation.

9. I respectfully submit that in the meantime the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 has been nullified by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the month of April 2023 and the Greater Chennai Corporation was brought under the Tamil Nadu Urban Corporation was brought under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 w.e.f 14.04.2023. Further, submit that, any person aggrieved with the tax assessment are given liberty to file a taxation appeal before the Taxation Appeal Committee, after paying the arrears of tax amount if any.”

10. I respectfully submit that during regular inspection / GIS verification a revision was made on the said property and a revised assessment order was addressed to the petitioner through postal service with the extent of the property and the petitioner was given liberty to file an appeal if any discrepancies within 15 days from the date receipt of the copy before the Regional Deputy Co