SRI VEERA SUBBAIAH SWAMIGAL MUTT BY ITS MADATHIPATHI A. VIDYANANDA GIRI SWAMIGAL Vs. CORPORATION OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Subbiah learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Balakrishnan learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The writ appeal is directed against the order of Y. Venkatachalam, J. dated 21.11.1995 in W.P. No. 10022 of 1985. The said order reads as follows:

(2.) The above order of remand to the respondent for fresh disposal is under challenge in this writ appeal. We have perused the affidavit and other documents relied upon by both the parties. The premises bearing No. 52, V.V. Koil Street, Perambur Barracks Road, Madras -7 admittedly belongs to the appellant mutt. It is a Religious Institution propagating the Hindu Philosophy with the temple attached to it both for public and private worship. In fact it has been declared so by the Government of Tamil Nadu under G.O. Ms. No. 1447 dated 23.6.1975. It is also not in dispute that periodical lectures are also conducted on the subject of Hindu Philosophy in the said premises. It is also not in dispute that on account of the nature of the property as Mutt and temple, exclusively used for religious purpose the property in question was exempted from the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act and the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act. However, for the first time, ever since its foundation in or about 1921 by its founder His Holiness Sri Nyaya Chandra Vedanta Bhaskara, it was assessed for property tax. All of a sudden, the Corporation of Madras sent a notice demanding property tax for the year 1982. Inspite of the appellant's plea for exemption under law, as it is a religious institution the demand was renewed by notice dated 12.6.1985 demanding tax for Rs. 302 per half year for the years 1982 to September, 1985. As the demand is against law, the appellant filed a writ petition on the file of this Court to quash the said order of demand by issue of a writ of certiorari. The writ petition was filed in the year 1985. No counter -affidavit was filed by the respondent Corporation, during the pendency of the writ petition from the year 1985 till its disposal by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 21.11.1995. However, our attention was drawn to various proceedings of the other authorities granting exemption to the property in question from payment of any tax. The proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax North West Taluk (East) Madras -34 in D. Dis. No. 252/69 dated 7.5.1971 was placed before us. The order was made on a petition dated 26.9.1966 from the Madathipathi of the appellant Madam, Madras. A report from the Special Deputy Tahsildar was called for and he submitted his report on 20.4.1971. The order reads thus:

(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition the Appellate Court had the benefit of injunction restraining the corporation from demanding and collecting the property tax in respect of the appellant's premises in question. However, Ratnam, J. directed the appellant Mutt to pay the property tax during the pendency of the writ petition without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in the writ petition and in the event of success of the petitioner in the writ petition, it would be open to the petitioner to seek a refund of an adjustment of the tax so paid. The said order was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court by their order dated 26th May, 1987 in C.M.P. 9238 of 1987 in Writ Appeal No. 829 of 1987. An injunction was also issued restraining the Corporation from demanding and collecting tax. The interim injunction granted by the Appellate Judges was also made absolute by the sub -sequent Division Bench by their order dated 18th April, 1988. Ultimately the writ appeal itself was allowed by another Division Bench on 26th July, 1989. The said direction was punctually complied with by the office by posting the writ petition for final hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.11.1995 to dispose of the writ petition as above. Our attention was drawn to the order in NA. Ka. 6089/89 (Cl) dated 16.5.1991 of the Authorised Officer, Urban Land Ceiling and Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling Thandiarpet, Madras -29 dated 16.5.1991. The Government under the above order have not only exempted the land from the purview of the provisions of the Act but also dropped the proceedings to acquire surplus lands. The voluminous evidence produced before us would only go to show that the appellant mutt was exempted from payment of property tax (Section 101(a) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act). It is a specific case of the appellant that even since its foundation in or about 1921 by its founder it was not assessed for property tax but all of a sudden the respondent sent a notice for property tax in the year 1982. The other orders passed by the Urban Land Tax Office and Urban Land Ceiling Office would clearly show that the property in question was exempted from the purview of the special enactments. Under such circumstances, the respondent corporation cannot discriminate the appellant mutt and direct them to pay the property tax when it is admittedly exempted from payment of property tax with reference to special enactments of the State of Tamil Nadu. Sec. 101(a) exempts from the property tax the places set apart for public worship and either actually so used or used for no other purpose. In this case a reference was made to the report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar by the Office of the Commissioner of Urban Land Tax North West Taluk - -(East) Madras -34 in D. Dis. No. 252 of 1969 dated 7.5.1971. The Special Deputy Tahsildar who has made enquiries about the land in question which stands registered in the name of the appellant Mutt, has reported that any land in question is used by the Mutt for the purpose of promoting Hindu Culture, and Religion that no portion of the land has been let out or used as a private residence and that no income is derived by the Mutt out of this land and in the above circumstances, the land in question in which the building, admittedly the temple is put up is eligible for automatic exemption under the provisions of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. As per the directions of the Division Bench, the learned Counsel for the appellant placed before us certain photographs of the temple. A big temple is built on the land in question. It appears to be an ancient temple built in the year 1921. A look at the photographs would only prove that it is a big Hindu temple satisfying all the requirements of a temple in question. On a perusal of the photographs and all the other records, we are of the view that the temple is a Hindu temple which is in actual existence on the property in question and it is now said to be levied property tax. Since it is a place of public worship, the appellant institution is entitled for exemption from payment of property tax. Therefore, we are of the view that the demand now raised by the Corporation of Madras which is impugned in the writ petition is liable to. be set aside. We hold that the appellant temple is a place of public worship and it is actually used for the said purpose and therefore exempted under the provisions of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 from the property tax.