IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.7.2011 CORAM; THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition Nos.1593 to 1595 of 2004 and 1598 and 1599 of 2004 and WPMP.Nos.1712 to 1714 of 2004 and 1715 & 1716/04 774 of 2009 & 775/09 Thangam W/o.M.S.Natarajan .. Petitioner in WP.No.1593/2004 M.N.Hari Krishnan .. Petitioner in WP.No.1594/2004 M.N.Krishnan .. Petitioner in WP.No.1595/2004 M.N.Manikandan .. Petitioner in WP.Nos.1598 and 1599 of 2004 -Vs- The Commissioner Mettur Municipality Mettur, Salem District. .. Respondent in all W.Ps. Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Honourable Court to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of Final Demand Notice made in Na.Ka.No.9234/99/A1 dated 21.10.2003 in W.P.1593/04, Na.Ka.No.9233/99/A1 in w.P.1594/04 Na.Ka.No.9232/99/A1 in w.P.1595/04 Na.Ka.No.9769/99/A1 in w.P.1598/04 and 1599/04 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same. WPMP.Nos.1712 to 1714/04 and 1715 & 1716/04 to stay all further proceedings of final demand notice made in NA.Ka.No.9232/99/A1, 9233/99/A1, 9232/99/A1, 9769/99/A1 dated 21.10.2003 on the file of the respondent rending disposal of the above WPs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioners : Mr.S.Doraisamy For respondent : Mr.D.Krishnakumar in all W.Ps COMMON ORDER The petitioners have come to this Court by challenging the Demand Notice in Na.Ka.No.9234/99/A1 dated 21.10.2003, issued by the respondent-Mettur Municipality, Salem District and to quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners' property situated at S.No.24/12, Square Market, Mettur Dam-1 was assessed by the respondent Municipality for the purpose of property tax in the year 1993 at Rs.10,961/-. After 1993, the respondent again re-assessed the property tax by enhancing Rs.10,961/- to Rs.29,728/-. Aggrieved by the said enhancement of previous assessment of the property tax of the petitioners' commercial complex, when the petitioners have approached the respondent- Municipality by moving writ petition, the respondent also revised the property tax from Rs.29,728/- to Rs.23,782/-. Once again aggrieved by the said minimum reduction, the petitioners also filed appeal before the Chairman of Municipality within the statutory limitation prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act. The said appeal was also finally considered by an order dated 25.6.1999 confirming the amount of Rs.23,782/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Chairman of the respondent-Municipality, the petitioners filed a civil suit in O.S.No.365 of 1999. During the pendency of the civil suit, the matter was referred before Lok Adalat. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners received the suit papers returned by the civil court on 23.1.2003. Even though the suit papers were returned on 23.1.2003, the petitioners also received a notice from Lok Adalat on 23.6.2003 calling upon the petitioners to participate in the enquiry on 30.6.2003 and petitioners subsequently participated and thereafter no further improvement had taken place before the Lok Adalat. 4. In the meanwhile, when the petitioners were waiting for further information, they have received demand notice dated 21.10.2003 from the respondent, calling upon them to pay the entire balance amount upto half yearly year 2003-2004. The said order was challenged in the present writ petitions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. At the time of entertaining the present writ petitions, this Court, by Order dated 3.2.2004 in WPMP.Nos.1712 to 1714 of 2004, directed the petitioners to pay the entire amount of arrears. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in obedience to the order passed by this Court, the petitioners paid all arrears including 50% of the enhanced amount to the respondent. He has also added that in view of the pendency of the suit before the Civil Court and subsequently on receipt of notice from Lok Adalat on 23.6.2003, the petitioners were not able to pursue the matter and in the meanwhile, they challenged the demand notice dated 21.10.2003. Therefore, he submits that an opportunity may be given to the petitioners to go before the Taxation Appellate Authority. 7. Opposing the said prayer, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent strongly argued by denying the said request for the reason that when the petitioners had failed to challenge the original order, by filing a civil suit in O.S.No.365 of 1999, the petitioners have approached the civil court and the suit papers were returned to them on 23.1.2003 and subsequently the matter was also listed before Lok Adalat. He further submitted that the petitioners did not pursue the matter either before the Lok Adalat or after the suit papers were returned to them by approaching the appropriate Authority and therefore, the petitioners now challenged the consequential demand notice of the respondent, which cannot be entertained. The said argument may not stand to reason. 8. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent may not stand to any logic or reason. Admittedly, it is the case where the petitioners, right from 1988 has been representing the matter before the respondent. Thereafter, when the revision was dismissed, the petitioners once again preferred appeal before the Chairman of the respondent-Municipality within the statutory period. The Chairman of the respondent-Mettur Municipality also by order dated 25.6.1999 confirmed the earlier order, directing the petitioners to pay Rs.23,782/- as enhanced property tax for the petitioners' commercial complex. Thereafter, the petitioners, though wrongly filed civil suit, the suit papers were returned to them on 23.1.2003 and thereafter the petitioners also received notice from Lok Adalat on 23.6.2003. But, unfortunately the matter was not pursued before the Lok Adalat. As suit papers were returned, the petitioners approached this Court challenging the demand notice dated 21.10.2003 and this Court also directed the petitioners to pay the entire arrears and that order was also complied with. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioners should be given a chance to present their case before the Taxation Appellate Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to approach the Taxation Appellate Tribunal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. If the petitioners approached the Taxation Appellate Tribunal within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, the Taxation Appellate Tribunal shall take up the matter as expeditiously as possible and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. 10. With the above directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Connected WPMP.Nos.1712 to 1714 of 2004 and 774 of 2009 are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. vks Copy to:- The Commissioner Mettur Municipality Mettur, Salem District. 5 ccs to Mr.D.Krishnakumar, Advocate, Sr. 41621 to 41625 5 ccs to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, Sr. 4112 to 41116 W.P.Nos.1593 to 1595 of 2004 and 1598 and 1599 of 2004 and WPMP.Nos.1712 to 1714 of 2004 and 1715 & 1716/04 774 of 2009 & 775/09 SGL (CO) kk 23/8 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/