@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Sharma, J.@mdashThe Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai, vide which the Revision filed by the Petitioner was partly allowed, and the case remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner, for revising the assessment order, after deducting the lands sold before the commencement of the Act.
2. Though writ against the remand order is not competent, but in view of the fact that while remanding the case, the learned Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai only partly allowed the revision petition. The necessity has therefore arisen to go into the merit of the contentions.
3. The Petitioner owns 18 grounds 1708 sq.ft. of land in T.S. No. 7/2 Bk.34 of Sivagiripatti of Palani Town. The Special Tahsildar (ULT), issued Notice in Form 4C to the Urban land owner and passed assessment order, levying Urban Land Tax of Rs. 13,278/-(Rupees Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Eight only) per fasli.
4. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order, filed Revision u/s 30(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. The Revision was allowed, and the assessment order was set aside. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to pass fresh order, after allowing 25% of tax concession for the SSI Unit run by the Urban Land Owner.
5. In pursuance to the direction given by the Revisional Authority, the Special Tahsildar (ULT) passed a fresh order, allowing 25% tax concession for the SSI Unit run in the land vide C. No. 4/93/Sivagiripatti/F.1402/W-III/B.34 dated 21.07.1994.
6. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal against the order before the Urban Land Tax (Tribunal). The Appeal was dismissed on 15.03.2002.
7. The Petitioner challenged the order of assessment, and that of the Appellate Authority, on the grounds that the area measuring 4025 1/2 sq.ft., was sold out by the Petitioner before the commencement of the Act, but the Assistant Commissioner included this area also in the assessment, and that the Assistant Commissioner did not take into consideration the sale deeds, with respect to the land situated near the land of Petitioner, but took into consideration the sale deed qua the land of a distance place where the value of land is very high.
8. It is also the stand of the Petitioner, that the price of land taken into consideration by the Assistant Commissioner was not comparable, as it was at a distance of 1 1/2 K.M away, whereas there were two comparable sales covered by Document No. 890/7.7.80 and 891/7.7.80.
9. The contention was also raised, that there was a rice mill earlier, whereas there is no business now.
10. The learned Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai accepted the contentions, that the sold out area of 4025 1/2 sq.ft. was not to be taken into account while revising the assessment. The plea of the Petitioner that the wrong sale deeds was taken into consideration to fix the market value, and that the relevant sale deeds were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner was rejected by holding that recent sale viz. 04.03.1981 was rightly relied upon, whereas the sale deeds cited by the Petitioner were of 07.07.1980.
11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the site plan to show, that the sale deeds which was taken into consideration, was of the land situated 1 1/2 K.M. away, whereas the sale deed relied on by the Petitioner was of the land adjacent to the land, the market value of which was to be assessed.
12. The map shows, that there is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The sale deed in the vicinity could not be rejected merely because it was of July 1980, whereas the sale deed of far off place was later in time i.e. on 04.03.1981. This finding of the learned Revisional Authority cannot be sustained in law.
13. This Court, in the case in Madras Hotel Asoka (P) Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax 1990 W.L.R. 485 was pleased to lay down that exercise of power by the Assistant Commissioner in assessing the market value are quasi judicial, therefore, the market value of the urban land is to be fixed with great care and caution, by following the principle of fair play and justice.
14. This Court, again, in the case in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Madurai v. The Special Tribunal For Urban Land Tax Appeals, Madurai 1993 (2) L.W. 675 held that good reasons are required to be given for accepting or rejecting the sale deeds relied on by the parties.
15. The reason given by the Revisional Authority in rejecting the sale deed of the Petitioner is totally arbitrary, as the sale deed in the nearby vicinity could not be rejected merely because the sale was of the year 1980.
16. In any case, while ordering the remand of the matter, by setting aside the order of assessment, the Revisional Authority should have permitted the Petitioner, to raise all the points, before the assessing authority. There is no justification for rejecting the contentions partly while accepting the revision and remanding the case back.
17. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, impugned part of order is set aside, and the Assistant Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh order by considering all the points, which may be raised by the Petitioner, while assessing the market value.
