A.J.S.PAUL (DEAD) Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notice issued by the first respondent dated 16.08.2002 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The impugned notice 16.08.2002 states that the petitioners have to pay the arrears of property tax as detailed in the notice, and in the event of non payment, action will be initiated under commercial law and steps would be taken to disconnect water connection and other facilities. The details of arrears of property tax to be paid also has been enclosed along with the impugned notice. The writ petitioners filed these writ petitions for a direction to the 2 nd respondent Corporation not to recover the property tax demanded by them.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners vehemently contended that revised assessment has not been done in respect of the premises belonging to the writ petitioners and they were paying the property tax as per the original assessment made and therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be scrapped. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions that questioning the correctness of the assessment, a civil suit was filed in O.S.No.834 of 1994, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, to declare that the enhancement of the property tax by the second respondent was against law, and for permanent injunction against the said respondent from collecting the property tax on the basis of the assessment made. The grievances of the writ petitioners is that the property belonging to them was not annually valued for the purpose of imposing the property tax, with reference to the principles of fixation and other provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18/1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1/1980. Relying on the judgment and decree passed in the civil suit in O.S.No.834 of 1994, the petitioners continued to pay the property tax assessed long back. The petitioners also filed E.P.Nos.89 of 1999 and 149 of 1999 to punish the second respondent and sought permission to proceed against the Assistant Commissioner of Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation. By way of common order dated 31.1.2000, the District Munsif held that the second respondent and other officers of the Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation had committed an act of disobedience of the decree passed by the Court and ordered the second respondent to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and similar order was passed against the Assistant Commissioner of Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation.