Parties must exhaust statutory remedies before seeking redress in the Civil Court under special enactments.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. He filed a suit seeking declaration that the demand notice issued by the defendant Municipality directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.31,920/- as arrears of tax for the year 2007 to 2012 was null and void and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant Municipality from taking any coercive steps. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 29.10.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant Municipality filed the first appeal and the same was allowed on 19.08.2024. Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

2. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of the building standing in the suit property and the same has been in his possession and enjoyment for residential use.

3. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant Municipality without any prior notice issued the impugned demand notice, calling upon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.31,920/-. Since the said demand notice was issued without following the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act , 1920 [hereinafter "said Act" for the sake of brevity] the instant suit was filed seeking the above said reliefs.

4. The defendant filed a written statement and resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to approach the Civil Court without seeking reduction of the assessed tax before the competent authority in the Municipal Office. In sum and substance, the suit was resisted only on the ground that the plaintiff had not availed the alternate remedy available before the competent authority.

5. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.A1 to Exs.A7. On the side of the defendant, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and five documents were marked as Exs.B1 to Exs.B5.

6. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the impugned demand notice was issued without prior notice and hence, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant Municipality filed a first appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2015 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai District. The First Appellate Court, held that the plaintiff failed to avail the alternate remedy before the Taxation Appeal Committee constituted under the said Act and hence, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Accordingly, the first appeal filed by the defendant Municipality was allowed and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that Rule 9 of the Taxation and Finance Rules [hereinafter "said Rules" for the sake of brevity] framed under Schedule IV of the said Act, provides that whenever there is an enhancement of the building tax assessment, the Executive Authority shall send a special notice to the owner or occupier of the building to enable the owner of the building to seek redressal before the Taxation Appeal Committee. In the case on hand, the defendant Municipality failed to give prior notice as per the Statutory Rules. Since the procedure contemplated under the Statutory Rules has not been complied with, the plaintiff is entitled to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration regarding the invalidity of the demand notice issued by the defendant Municipality. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the K.A.Arokkiam Vs. The Dindigul Municipality reported in 2010 (2)

CTC 51.

8. A perusal of the pleadings of parties would indicate that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the tax in respect of the suit building has been assessed by the defendant Municipality without iss