G. JAGADESH CHANDRAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition relates to assessment proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Urban Land Tax Act.

(2.) THE second respondent fixed the value of the Urban properties of the petitioner at Rs. 31,200 per ground for the land comprised in T.S. Nos. 1015 and 1016 and at Rs. 27,500 per ground for the land situate in T.S. No. 1017 of Ward I, Block 17, Coimbatore village, Coimbatore taluk. Yet another item, i.e., the land comprised in T.S. No. 59613 in Ward II, Block 25, of the same village was valued at Rs. 12,000 per ground. The petitioner appealed to the third respondent, which is the Statutory Appellate Authority, against the order of assessment. The third respondent allowed the appeal in part and fixed the market value for T.S. Nos. 1015 and 1016 at Rs. 26,500 per ground, for T.S. No. 1017 at Rs. 20,500 per ground and for T.S. No. 59613 at Rs. 9,600 per ground.

(3.) THE petitioner had produced the five sale deeds before the second respondent in support of his contention that the sale prices recited in them represented the correct market value of urban property in the areas where his lands are situate and, therefore, the properties should be assessed on the basis of the figures contained in those sale deeds. The second respondent rejected the documents and has given reasons for rejecting some documents alone. With reference to the other documents, he has merely stated that they were considered in other cases and held unacceptable, and, therefore, he was eschewing those documents from consideration in the petitioner's case also. As far as the third respondent is concerned, it has not made any reference to the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his contentions. On account of these laches, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Sivaji, argues that the two statutory authorities, viz., the second and third respondents, have not discharged their statutory duties and quasi -judicial functions properly and hence their orders have to be quashed. In support of this contention, he relies upon Messrs. Southern Roadways Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner, Urban Land Tax : (1978) 1 MLJ 115. He also quotes two other unreported judgments in this behalf, viz., Ramachandram v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer W.P. No. 3816 of 1976, Raman v. Board of Revenue W.P. No. 3817 of 1976 and Shanmugham Pillai v. State of Tamil Nadu W.P. No. 4073 of 1976.