@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
E. Padmanabhan, J.@mdashThe petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in B.2/2485/2000, dated 9.8.2001 on the file of the Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai-5, the first respondent herein and to quash the same in so far as it is against the petitioner, with a consequential direction to the second respondent to serve the assessment order passed in N.C. No. 15/Block 31/Egmore/91, dated 30.6.1997 in favour of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. P. Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. P. Nedunchezhian, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and none appearing for the third respondent despite service. With the consent of counsel on either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the land ad measuring two grounds and 1784 sq.ft., comprised in Survey No. 479/1 and new S. No. 479/6 situate in Block No. 31, Egmore Village bearing No. 21.L, Halls Road, Egmore. It is the case of the petitioner that he had acquired the said property validly by a deed of registered sale deed dated 2.4.1970 from G. Nandagopal Naidu. In para 2 and 3 of the affidavit the petitioner has traced his title to the property. However as it is not necessary to refer to the details of acquisition or as to how the petitioner claims title to the property at this stage the details are not being extracted. The petitioner further claims he and his predecessor in title are in possession for decades together. The petitioner could not develop the land due to financial constraints. Taking advantage of the vacant land, the third respondent with a view to grab the property without any semblance of title got the Urban Land Tax levied in his favour in respect of the property. There was neither any basis nor there is any cause for the second respondent assessing the petitioner''s property in the name of the third respondent. The third respondent started asserting certain novel rights on the basis of the illegal entry in the Revenue register.
4. The petitioner states that the land has been assessed by the second respondent in the name of the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax since 1997. The earlier revenue register entry stood in the name of his father. The third respondent by playing fraud had made a false claim and obtained an illegal assessment order in his favour. ON coming to know of the proceedings of the assessment issued in respect of the very same land as if the third respondent is the owner, the petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent u/s 30(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act to set aside the assessment proceedings passed by the second respondent in favour of the third respondent. The petitioner filed number of documents to prove his title and possession. It is claimed that the third respondent has filed memo before the first respondent during enquiry for setting aside the order and for the matter being remitted for re-enquriy before the second respondent. However, the first respondent without examining the revision on merits, has passed the impugned proceedings remitting the entire matter to the second respondent. Challenging the same the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Mr. P. Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in so far as the orders of assessment passed in the name of the petitioner there has been no challenge whatsoever by anyone much less by the third respondent and therefore there is no justification at all to set aside the orders of assessment passed by the second respondent in respect of the said land in favour of the petitioner.
6. Mr. Gopalan, learned counsel further contended that there is overwhelming documentary evidence in support of the petitioner''s claim of title and possession besides patta proceedings as well as the assessment proceedings under the Urban Land Tax and therefore the action of the first respondent in failing to record a finding in this respect and as a matter of course remitting the matter to the second respondent without recording a finding or without deciding the issue, amounts to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Mr. Gopalan also contended that the first respondent ought not to have remitted the matter to the second respondent as at the level of second respondent the petitioner is being harassed despite his being in possession of overwhelming documents and the third respondent with his influence is not only dictating terms but also tries to get things done unlawfully in his favour by resorting to extra methods.
7. Per contra, Mr. P. Nedunchezhian learned Government Advocate contends that no interference is called for as the first respondent has remitted the matter to the second respondent for de novo consideration without himself deciding the dispute and such a procedure adopted is warranted on the facts of the case. Mr. P. Nedunchezhian also contended that before passing orders of assessment either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the third respondent in respect of the same property no opportunity has been afforded to either side and therefore it is essential to afford opportunity to either parties and to render substantial justice the first respondent has remitted the entire matter while setting aside the assessment made in favour of the petitioner as well as in the name of the third respondent. Such a course resorted to by the first respondent is a fair procedure since the second respondent could afford necessary opportunity to the petitioner as well as the third respondent and decide the mater de novo.
8. Though Mr. P. Gopalan learned counsel also contended that the matter has to be remitted back to the first respondent for de novo consideration, though this court finds that there is substance in the contention advanced by Mr. P. Gopalan, on the facts of the case, in the interest of either side and to give quietus, this court is of the considered view that the matter be decided by the second respondent after affording necessary opportunities to either side.
9. The petitioner claims exclusive title while the same is disputed by the third respondent and he claims some rights. Such disputed questions of title cannot be gone into either by this court or by any of the respondents 1 and 2. Such disputed title being a civil dispute has to be decided by a competent civil court. However, for the limited purpose of assessment of tax in terms of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax, the second respondent could decide the owner on a prima facie case assessment of Urban Land Tax.
10. Mr. P. Nedunchezhian, Government Advocate, points out that when orders of assessment has been passed in respect of the very property as if it is in the holding of the petitioner no notice was issued to other side. So also when in respect of the very same land assessment was made in favour of third respondent the second respondent has simply passed another assessment order for the same period as if the third respondent is holding the very same urban land without any notice. It is rather extraordinary and this would show the second respondent has failed to maintain the records in a manner required or expected of a public authority. The second respondent also has not issued any notice to the petitioner before passing assessment proceedings in the name of the third respondent. This again is a violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provision. That apart, when the revenue records reflect the name of the petitioner and his father it is rather strange that the second respondent had assessed the urban land in question as if the third respondent is the owner. This is a strange and extraordinary conduct of the second respondent. There is definite omission and commission on the part of the second respondent and the action of the second respondent cannot be appreciated, nor it is a bona fide one and it deserves to be deprecated.
11. The second respondent, a statutory authority, exercising powers under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 and the Rules should go by the public records. Without reference to the existing entries which sand in the name of the petitioner, the second respondent has assessed the very land as if the third respondent is the owner. Such an assessment order has been passed against the interest of the petitioner and without notice to the petitioner despite the facts that the land has been assessed in he hands of the petitioner as the owner. Had a notice been served to the petitioner, he would have definitely placed materials. Had an opportunity been afforded to the petitioner, it is claimed that the petitioner would have placed voluminous documents to prove his title and possession. It is also alleged that the third respondent has neither a document of title nor possession and his claim is extraordinary and a false claim. This court is not deciding the inter se dispute of title and possession between the petitioner and the third respondent as the same has to be decided by a competent forum like a civil court ultimately.
12. On a perusal of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 9.8.2001, it is clear that the first respondent exercising powers of revision u/s 30 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax has not decided the controversy nor has applied its mind to the controversy nor recorded a finding one way or other. This amounts to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the first respondent, a revisional authority. Though the first respondent is a revisional authority it is expected to act fairly and reasonably and orders should be passed in accordance with statutory provision. In the present case the first respondent has not decided the controversy, but has relegated the matter to the second respondent for being decided. This procedure adopted by the first respondent is being commented upon. Mr. P. Gopalan, contends that the first respondent should have decided the petitioner''s claim of ownership vis-a-vis the third respondent in the light of the voluminous documents placed by the petitioner before the first respondent. Though such a contention is attractive in the interest of the petitioner himself, this court is of the considered view that the matter should be remitted back to the second respondent for deciding the claims of the petitioner viz-a-viz third respondent.
13. A perusal of the impugned proceedings passed by the first respondent would show that in para 1 the first respondent has merely summarised the contentions or objections of the petitioner. In para 2 of his proceedings, the first respondent has referred to the contents of the letter/report submitted by the second respondent and also the request of the second respondent to remit the entire mater back to the second respondent. In para 3 of the proceedings, the first respondent has referred to the documents produced by the petitioner besides pointing out that the petitioner has produced patta. Mr. P. Gopalan, learned counsel represents that the petitioner has produced patta besides clinching original documents of title tracing title commencing from 1904 onwards and on that basis the first respondent ought to have decided the petitioner''s claim of ownership.
14. It is contended that there is overwhelming documents in favour of the petitioner while the third respondent has no document at all. In para 3 also the first respondent had not decided the controversy. In para 4 of the proceedings also the first respondent has merely set aside the assessment proceedings passed by the second respondent both in favour of the petitioner as well as in favour of the third respondent in respect of the very same land and remitted the matter back to the second respondent for de novo proceedings with a direction to pass orders within two months from the date of communication of the order. Therefore it is clear that the first respondent has not decided the controversy and it is not as if the first respondent is not capable of deciding the controversy. For the limited purpose the first respondent could have decided the claim of the petitioner viz-a-viz the third respondent on the basis of materials placed. But the first respondent has remitted the matter to the second respondent since the second respondent has reported that the proceedings of assessment both in favour of the petitioner and third respondent be set aside and remitted back and that he will pass de novo proceedings after affording opportunity.
15. It is obvious that the second respondent has realised the illegality committed by him in this respect and it is an error apparent on the face of the record which the second respondent has admitted. As already pointed out, this court would normally remit back the matter to the second respondent with a direction to decide the matter on merits. However, no opportunities has been afforded by the second respondent to either side and the second respondent himself has admitted that such an assessment orders has been passed wrongly and that both the assessment proceedings be set aside and may be remitted for de novo proceedings. Such a procedure will be in the interest of the contesting parties as they could place materials and also establish their respective case. That apart, there could be an effective adjudication. Further, the second respondent could effectively decide the matter with reference to the revenue records and the material documents that may be produced by the petitioner as well as the contesting third respondent.
16. In view of this, though this is a fit case, where this court will be justified in quashing the proceedings and remitting the matter to the first respondent, this court holds that it is not necessary to interfere with the proceedings of the first respondent as the direction issued by the first respondent to the second respondent is a fair one and meets the end of justice.
17. Mr. P. Gopalan, learned counsel contended that the proceedings passed in favour of the petitioner was not the subject matter of revision and therefore the first respondent misdirected itself in setting aside the assessment proceedings passed in favour of the petitioner. There is some force. But it cannot be countenanced for the reason that when orders of assessment has been passed with respect to the very same land as if the petitioner is owner of the land no notice has been issued to any one, much less, the third respondent. So also when the second respondent passed the assessment orders in favour of the third respondent in respect of the very same land, no notice has been issued. The claim of the petitioner viz-a-viz the third respondent are in respect of the same land requires to be assessed for the purpose of Urban Land Tax. Such decision has to be confined only to the limited extent namely as to who is the owner of the urban land. It is made clear that such decision cannot and will not be final and being a civil dispute, it has to be decided certainly by a civil court and not by revenue authorities or authority like the respondents 1 and 2, who are just concerned with the collection of Urban Land Tax.
18. In the circumstances, this court confirms the ultimate order of remand passed by the first respondent and dismiss the writ petition. This court directs the second respondent to afford opportunity to either parties to let in oral and documentary evidence, afford opportunity of hearing to the parties or their advocate and thereafter pass orders according to law. The second respondents shall decide the claim and counter claim within three months from the date of communication of this order as the first respondent himself has given such a direction. If for any reason the second respondent is unable to decide the complicate question of title, it is open to the third respondent to direct both of them to go before a competent civil court and establish their respective title.
19. Writ Petition is dismissed with the above direction. Consequently, connected WMP is closed. No costs.
