R GURUNATHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the stage of admission, learned Government Pleader was directed to take notice and obtain the records and ascertain as to whether an order under Sec. 59 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Court -fees and Suits Valuation Act was passed by the Collector. Accordingly, learned government Pleader has secured the records.

(2.) THE appeal is preferred against the order dated 5. 7. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 11388 of 1994. In the writ petition, the petitioner/ appellant sought for quashing the order dated

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, this writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 3. 7. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge is set abide. The letter of the 1st respondent dated 3. 9. 1993 demanding additional court-fee in a sum of rs. 36,641 is quashed. The proceedings are remitted to the Collector with a direction to decide the issue as to whether there has been an undervaluation of the property comprised in the letters of administration, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner/ appellant to put forth his say including the contention that under the proviso to Sec. 56 (lj the property comprised in letters of administration is not liable to any fee under Chapter VI of the Act. To avoid further delay in the matter, we direct the petitioner/appellant to appear before the Collector on 15th March, 1995 without waiting for the notice and in the event the petitioner fails to appear on 15. 3. 1995 it is open to the collector to proceed in accordance with law. However, there will be no order as to costs. .