Madras High Court
R.Senthilkumar vs The Commissioner on 12 June, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.R.P(MD).Nos.1294, 1295 and 1296 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1294, 1295 and 1296 of 2021
C.R.P(MD).No.1294 of 2021
R.Senthilkumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal
Corporation by its Executive Authority,
Bharathidasan Salai, Tiruchirappalli-1 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, to call for the records and set aside the decree and judgment in
A.S.No.29 of 2017 dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Tiruchirappalli by allowing this civil revision petition.
C.R.P(MD).No.1295 of 2021
1.Sivakumar
2.S.Shanthi ...Petitioners
Vs.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
C.R.P(MD).Nos.1294, 1295 and 1296 of 2021
The Commissioner,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal
Corporation by its Executive Authority,
Bharathidasan Salai, Tiruchirappalli-1 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, to call for the records and set aside the decree and judgment in
A.S.No.30 of 2017 dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Tiruchirappalli by allowing this civil revision petition.
C.R.P(MD).No.1296 of 2021
Priya Bhanthavi ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal
Corporation by its Executive Authority,
Bharathidasan Salai, Tiruchirappalli-1 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, to set aside the decree and judgment in A.S.No.28 of 2017 dated
21.08.2018 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli by
allowing this civil revision petition.
In all cases
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Boopal
For Respondent : Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram
Standing Counsel
for M/s.R.B.Law Associates
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
C.R.P(MD).Nos.1294, 1295 and 1296 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners are owners of the respective properties in question.
The petitioners were served with notice with regard to the property tax
assessed by the respondent municipality in respect of the subject properties
for the year 2016–2017. Challenging the said assessment, the petitioners
preferred appeals in Tax Assessment Appeal Nos.5, 6 and 7 of 2017 and the
same were dismissed by the Tax Assessment Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli.
Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Tax
Assessment Appellate Tribunal, namely, Principal District Court,
Tiruchirappalli, in A.S.Nos.28, 29 and 30 of 2017 and the same were also
dismissed confirming the the order passed by the Tax Assessment Tribunal,
Tiruchirappalli. As against the concurrent findings, the present civil revision
petitions have been filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the petitioners are the owners of the properties in (i)New Block No.30, New
T.S.No.71, Thillai Nagar 7th Cross East, Plot No.D 12 GF, (ii)New Block No.
30, New T.S.No.71, Thillai Nagar 7th Cross East, Plot No.D12 (35) and
(iii)New Block No.30, New T.S.No.71, Thillai Nagar 7th Cross East, Plot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
C.R.P(MD).Nos.1294, 1295 and 1296 of 2021
No.D12 (35), measuring to an extent of 1200 sq.ft., including the undivided
share of 400 sq.ft., respectively. The respondent assessed the property tax for
the half-year period of 2016–2017 to the tune of Rs.15,115/- along with fine
of Rs.1,140/-, as against which, they preferred appeals before the Tax
Assessment Tribunal and the same were dismissed, which were also
confirmed by the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappali / Tax Assessment
Appellate Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further would
submit that admittedly the petitioners are Doctors by profession and are not
engaged in any commercial activity. The properties in question have been
used solely for residential purpose, not for any commercial purpose.
However, the tax assessing authority has arbitrarily fixed property tax for the
half-year period of 2016–2017 at Rs.15,115/- along with fine amount of Rs.
1,140/-, which is excessive and exorbitant and the same needs to be
interfered with. It is also contended that both the Courts below failed to
consider this aspect. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate direction of this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
C.R.P(MD).Nos.1294, 1295 and 1296 of 2021
4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
submitted that the assessment was periodically revised in accordance with the
applicable Corporation Rules, after issuing notice to all concerned parties,
including the petitioners. Only by following due process, the property tax for
the half-year period of 2016–2017 was assessed to the tune of Rs.15,115/-. It
was further submitted that all three petitioners, being Doctors, were
practicing in the said premises, which were being used as commercial
establishments. Only based on both the oral and documentary evidences, the
Tax Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal found justification for the
assessment made by the respondent. Therefore, no interference is warranted
in the present civil revision petitions. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of
these revision petitions.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering the submissions of both sides, this Court is of the view that the
property tax in respect of the petitioners's property for the half-year period of
2016–2017 was assessed only in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Corporation Rules and due process of law. Hence, this Court found no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
C.R.P(MD).Nos.1294, 1295 and 1296 of 2021
reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of Courts below.
Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, the
petitioners are directed to deposit the balance amount, deducting the amount
already paid, without the penalty or penal interest. No costs.
12.06.2025
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Rmk
To:-
1.The Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
C.R.P(MD).Nos.1294, 1295 and 1296 of 2021
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
Rmk
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1294, 1295 and 1296 of 2021
12.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
