K A AROKKIAM Vs. DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these second appeals is to the common judgment rendered in Appeal Suit Nos. 241 and 107 of 2004 by the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, wherein, the common judgment rendered in Original Suit Nos. 330 and 331 of 2003 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul is reversed.

(2.) The appellant in both appeals as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit Nos. 330 and 331 of 2001 on the file of the trial Court praying to declare that the assessment made by the defendant to the suit property on 2.4.2001 is illegal and also for passing permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from collecting the amount mentioned in the assessment.

(3.) It is averred in the plaints filed in Original Suit Nos. 330 and 331 of 2001 that the plaintiff has newly constructed the suit property and the same has been assessed to property tax by the defendant. The property tax assessed by the defendant on the basis of zones, is nothing but arbitrary and the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. The assessment area within Dindigul Municipality limits, has been divided as A,B,C. The main bazar and business centre have been classified as'A'2one. The zones of 'B' and 'C' are classified according to its locations and importance. The cost of vacant site in ' A' zone is Rs.1,000/- per square foot. The suit property is situate in a residential area and the same is called as Nehriju Nahar. The suit property is not situate in an important place. The shops constructed by the plaintiff are not fully let out. The defendant has classified the suit property as 'A' zone. Under the said circumstances, the method of assessment made by the defendant is totally erroneous and the same has been done without proper application of provisions of the Act. The plaintiff has filed a revision petition and the same has been dismissed on 3.6.2000. The plaintiff has also filed an appeal to the Council of the defendant in Appeal Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999 stating that the method of assessment made by the defendant on the basis of zones is erroneous. The Council of the defendant without considering the method adopted by the defendant is erroneous, has nominally reduced the annual rental value of the suit property and passed its order on 2.4.2001. The defendant has adopted erroneous basis for fixing annual rental value. Under the said circumstances, the present suits have been filed for the reliefs sought for in the plaints.