Writ petition not entertained; petitioner directed to pursue statutory appeal under amended Act for property tax disputes.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 06.10.2025 and the consequential demand notice dated 23.03.2026 and also seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to re-assess the property tax in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.A.(MD) No. 1329 of 2022 dated 25.03.2025 and G.O.(Ms) No. 64, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) Department, dated

24.04.1998, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material records, it is seen that being originally aggrieved by the assessment, the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S.No 48 of 1992 on the file of the Munsif Court, Shengottai. Thereafter, appeals were also filed in A.S.Nos.76 of 1993 and 61 of 1996 and judgments were rendered therein.

3. Subsequently, when further proceedings were initiated, the petitioner challenged the same by way of a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 10790 of 2013, which was disposed of by order dated 28.09.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No.1329 of 2022 and by judgment dated 25.03.2025, the appeal was partly allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge was interfered with.

4. The operative portion of the said judgment in paragraphs 7 to 10 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“7.This aspect of the matter was not noticed by the learned Single Judge. We are therefore constrained to interfere with the order impugned in this writ appeal. We permit the appellant to submit an application to the Commissioner, Sengottai Municipality seeking refund of the excess property tax amount paid by him. The Municipal Commissioner will pass a speaking order on the said application and quantify the amount refundable to the appellant and his brother (Eswaran) in respect of the first floor portion. If the appellant and his brother are not in default in respect of ground floor portion, the said amount shall be refunded. If according to the municipality, there are arrears, it will be accordingly adjusted. In any event, a speaking order shall be passed and furnished to the appellant. The appellant is at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

8.The learned senior counsel for the appellant states that the original quantification of property tax was based on erroneous and excess measurement. It is open to the appellant to bring the same to the notice of the Municipal Commissioner. If the Municipal Commissioner is satisfied that the measurement shown in the revised assessment is not correct, he shall re- measure the property before passing final order on the appellant's application.

9.The property continues to stand in the name of the mother of the appellant namely, Lakshmiammal. She is said to have been passed away some two decades back. The municipality is directed to effect mutation in favour of the legal heirs of the Lakshmiammal.

10.This writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

5. Pursuant thereto, when a fresh notice of assessment was issued on 06.10.2025 and a consequential demand notice was thereafter issued, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the assessment order does not follow the original decree passed inter partes. Even otherwise, though the ground floor is commercial and the first floor is residential, the same has not been taken into account while making the assessment. Further, it is contended that there are other errors as well and the calculation sheet available online reflects a much lesser amount. When the petitioner seeking a refund and when the Division Bench directed the petitioner to