Madras High Court
S.Raman vs The Commissioner on 25 March, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.1329 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)No.1329 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.10414 of 2022
S.Raman ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Sengottai Municipality,
Sengottai,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 28.09.2022 in
W.P.(MD).No.10790 of 2013 on the file of this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:08 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.1329 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.T.S.R.Venkataramana, Senior Counsel,
For Ms.V.Janaki Devi.
For Respondents : Mr.P.Athimoola Pandian,
Standing Counsel for R1.
Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran,
Addl. Government Pleader for R2 & R3.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)
Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the learned
standing counsel for Sengottai Municipality and the learned Additional
Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 3.
2.The appellant / S.Raman and his brother / S.Eswaran owned the
premises bearing Door Nos.19/9A3 and 19/9A4, Ward No.6, 9/A/5,
Tenkasi Road, Shengottai. It is a storied construction comprising ground
floor and first floor. The ground floor portion has been leased out in
favour of Canara Bank. The first floor was originally let out in favour of
Agricultural department. After they vacated the property, it was let out
for residential purposes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:08 pm )
4.It is not in dispute that revision of property tax for residential
building has to be at 25%. In this case, the local body had treated the
first floor as if it was led for commercial purposes and revised at the rate
of 150%. This is clearly illegal. Merely because, the appellant had paid
the demanded amount, that would not estop him from seeking refund.
Article 265 of the Constitution of India states that any collection of tax
has to be by the authority of law. Where it is demonstrated that
collection was illegal, payment on the tax amount would not come in the
way of seeking refund.
5.The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that for
the ground floor portion also, the revision has to be at the rate of 50%
and not 150%. He relied on the letter No.3827/Elcc/2006-2 dated
01.02.2008. The relevant portion reads as follows:-
“CEILING
In respect of buildings coming under specialized
category, buildings like Star hotels, Theme parks, Multiplexes,
Shopping malls, Air conditioned wedding halls, Super Speciality
Hospital, etc, may be treated as separate category. Separate
basis value may be fixed by the concerned local body. This
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:08 pm )
overall enhancement of tax in quinquennial revision should not
be exorbitant so as to cause, serve hardship to the assesses.
Therefore, the following ceiling is fixed for the enhancement of
taxes consequent on the quinquennial revision of property tax:
Residential buildings (Whether
owner occupied or rented) 25%
For Industrial Buildings 100%
For Commercial Buildings 150%
For buildings assessed in the post revision period, the following
ceiling is proposed;
For buildings assessed after 1.10.07 No revision
For the buildings assessed between
1.4.2006 to 30.9.2006 5%
For the buildings assessed between
1.4.2005 to 31.03.2006 10%
For the buildings assessed between
1.4.2004 to 31.03.2005 15%
For the buildings assessed between
1.4.2003 to 31.03.2004 20%
In the previous revision the Government offices located in
private buildings were assessed on the actual rent paid by the
Department. The guidelines prescribed for the revision was not
adopted in respect of Central Government / State Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:08 pm )
offices / Quasi Government offices run in private buildings. For
the private buildings occupied by Government Departments, the
above guidelines prescribed may be followed in the ensuing
revision. In respect of revision of property tax for Government
Buildings the enhancement of property tax is fixed at 50%.”
6.We are of the view that Canara Bank though a Government of
India undertaking will not qualify to be called as Central Government /
State Government Office or a Quasi Government office. Therefore, the
aforesaid letter will not come to the rescue of the appellant.
7.This aspect of the matter was not noticed by the learned Single
Judge. We are therefore constrained to interfere with the order impugned
in this writ appeal. We permit the appellant to submit an application to
the Commissioner, Sengottai Municipality seeking refund of the excess
property tax amount paid by him. The Municipal Commissioner will
pass a speaking order on the said application and quantify the amount
refundable to the appellant and his brother (Eswaran) in respect of the
first floor portion. If the appellant and his brother are not in default in
respect of ground floor portion, the said amount shall be refunded. If
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:08 pm )
according to the municipality, there are arrears, it will be accordingly
adjusted. In any event, a speaking order shall be passed and furnished to
the appellant. The appellant is at liberty to challenge the same in the
manner known to law.
8.The learned senior counsel for the appellant states that the
original quantification of property tax was based on erroneous and excess
measurement. It is open to the appellant to bring the same to the notice
of the Municipal Commissioner. If the Municipal Commissioner is
satisfied that the measurement shown in the revised assessment is not
correct, he shall re-measure the property before passing final order on the
appellant's application.
9.The property continues to stand in the name of the mother of the
appellant namely, Lakshmiammal. She is said to have been passed away
some two decades back. The municipality is directed to effect mutation
in favour of the legal heirs of the Lakshmiammal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:08 pm )
10.This writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,)
25.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:-
1.The Commissioner,
Sengottai Municipality,
Sengottai,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:08 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ias
25.03.2025
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:08 pm )
