Madras High Court
K.Malar vs The Commissioner on 1 October, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.9037 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.10.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.9037 of 2013
and
M.P(MD).No.1 of 2013
K.Malar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Municipality,
Pudukottai Town and District.
2. The District Registrar,
Pudukottai Town and District.
3. C.N.Madava Rao ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
impugned order, dated 29.04.2013 made in Na.Ka.No.5683/2013/A1
passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.9037 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Singan
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.P.Mahendran
Standing Counsel
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.R.Murugan
Government Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
ORDER
Prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order, dated 29.04.2013, made in
Na.Ka.No.5683/2013/A1, passed by the first respondent and quash the
same.
2.In respect of the property, in T.S.No.256, 257 & 255 in Door
No.81/60 at Pudukottai Town, Pudukottai District, it is the claim of the
petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the property, and in that
strength, the municipality already assessed the property for property tax
in the name of the petitioner, by proceedings, dated 23.05.2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.9037 of 2013
3.However, the said proceedings have been cancelled by the
proceedings of the first respondent municipality, dated 29.04.2013, on
the ground, the document registered in the concerned Registrar office in
Document No.2612/2011 was cancelled by the Registrar concerned,
with the result, the property claimed to have been in the name of the
petitioner stood reverted back to one, Mrs.Pramila, and therefore, the
earlier proceedings issued by the first respondent municipality, dated
23.05.2011 has been cancelled through the order, dated 29.04.2013 of
the first respondent. Felt aggrieved over the same, the present writ
petition has been filed.
4.Heard Mr.V.Singan, learned counsel for the petitioner, who
submits that, the said Pramila herself is no more and legal heirs have
come. The third respondent, being the contesting respondent, between
them, that is, the petitioner and third respondent and others, there has
been a Civil Suit filed and it is pending in O.S.No.25 of 2019, on the
file of the I-Additional Sub Court, Pudukkottai and therefore, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
depending upon the outcome of the Judgment and Decree, the right of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.9037 of 2013
the petitioner to claim the ownership over the property in question, and
consequently, to claim the assessment of the property is concerned, by
the first respondent municipality for the purpose of the property tax, can
be persuaded.
5.The said view expressed by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner is not controverted by Mr.P.Ganapathy Subramanian,
learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, and he has also
endorsed that, in view of the Civil suit is pending, which is posted for
hearing very shortly, depending upon the outcome of the Civil Court
decree, parties can be permitted to work out their remedy.
6.In view of the said stand taken by both the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner as well as the third respondent, being the
contesting respondent, this Court feel that, at present, the impugned
order need not interfered with. However, it is open to the petitioner or
the third respondent or any other person under them, can make a claim
and work out their remedy with regard to the ownership of the property
concerned, or the assessment of the property for the purpose of property
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.9037 of 2013
tax by the first respondent municipality, depending upon the outcome of
the Judgment and Decree, to be passed in the pending Civil Suit referred
to above by the concerned Court.
7.Till such time, the order impugned in this writ petition need not
be interfered with.
8.With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.10.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes
PJL
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.9037 of 2013
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
PJL
To
1. The Commissioner,
Municipality,
Pudukottai Town and District.
2. The District Registrar,
Pudukottai Town and District.
W.P.(MD)No.9037 of 2013
01.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
