Madras High Court
Vv.Rajendran vs The Tiruchirappalli Municipal ... on 15 November, 2023
W.A.(MD)Nos.1974 & 1975 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD)Nos.1974 & 1975 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15432 & 15433 of 2023
VV.Rajendran ... Appellants in both W.As.
Vs.
The Tiruchirappalli Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Tiruchirappalli. ...Respondent in both W.As.
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act,
to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.13726 & 13727 of 2021, dated
10.07.2023 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For Respondent : Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram,
For M/s.R.B.Law Associates
(in both Writ Appeals)
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1974 & 1975 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)
The property, which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition, originally
belonged to one Venkitasamy Naidu. On his death, the said property was allotted
to the writ petitioner's brother one VV.Loganathan. From the said
VV.Loganathan, the writ petitioner had obtained the property. According to him,
between Tiruchirappalli Municipal Corporation / respondent and the writ
petitioner, a proceeding had taken place in O.S.No.1802 of 1996, which ended in
decree on 26.03.2002. The said suit was for a declaration that enhancement of
assessment is arbitrary and consequently, for relief of permanent injunction. The
decree of the civil Court has been filed before us and we are able to see that on
26.03.2002 the suit had been decreed. Subsequently, the demand notice had been
issued in the name of Venkitasamy Naidu. Challenging the same, the Writ
Petition has been filed.
2.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, after being aware
of the death of Venkitasamy Naidu, which has been disclosed in the suit, the
respondent ought not to have issued the notice in the name of a dead person. The
2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1974 & 1975 of 2023
learned Single Judge has taken this aspect into consideration and has given the
following direction:-
“7.Therefore, the respondent is directed to issue notice for
the period from 1993 onwards to the petitioner within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner
shall submit an explanation within a period of four weeks thereafter.
If need be, personal hearing shall be granted to the petitioner and
thereafter, the respondent shall pass an order in accordance to law.”
3.The learned Single Judge has not foreclosed the defences that are
available to the writ petitioner and granted four weeks time to the writ petitioner to
raise all his defences.
4.The only point urged before the learned Single Judge was that the
notice was issued in the name of dead person. That has been rectified by the
learned Single Judge by directing the respondent to issue notice in the name of the
writ petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order impugned herein.
It is always open to the appellant to raise all the defences including limitation that
are available to him within the period already granted by the learned Single Judge.
3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1974 & 1975 of 2023
5.With the above observations, these Writ Appeals are dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.M.S., J.) & (V.L.N., J.)
15.11.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1974 & 1975 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Yuva
W.A.(MD)Nos.1974 & 1975 of 2023
15.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
