M K NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties and the issue in the writ petition and the second appeal are one and the same, accordingly they are being disposed of by the following common order. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated l4.4.1976. as well as the order of the second respondent in its proceedings in U.L.T.A. No. 125 of 1976 dated 6.4.1977 the petitioners have filed the above writ petition for quashing both the orders. THE very same petitioners filed O.S. No. 383 of 1984 before the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli for mandatory injunction directing the defendants therein to effect separate/individual assessment in respect of urban land tax. THE trial court dismissed the suit holding that it has no jurisdiction to decide the issue in question. THE plaintiffs filed appeal A.S. No. 1 of 1989 before the District Court, Tiruchirapalli. THE lower appellate court confirmed the conclusion of the trial court and dismissed the appeal, against which the unsuccessful plaintiffs have filed second Appeal No. 1166 of 1989.

(2.) FOR the convenience, I shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition. The case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder:- The property situate in Ward No. I Sengulam village. Block No. 38 in T.S. No. 103 comprising 13 grounds and 1104 square feet originally belonged to one M.T. Karuppanna Konar, father of the first and second petitioners and grand-father of the third petitioner. On 7.9.75 there was a family partition between the petitioners. In the family partition the petitioners were alloted a distinct share. After the date of partition, the petitioners are paying the municipal taxes and house taxes separately. They are also paying the income taxes and first and second petitioners are paying wealth taxes separately after the date of partition. The said partition has been accepted by the Income-tax authorities, Wealth-tax Authorities and Municipal authorities. The entire extent of 13 grounds and 1104 sq.ft., was originally assessed to Urban Land Tax by the assessing authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act. 1966. After partition, the same was intimated to the assessing authorities with a request to assess the holdings allotted to them as a individual unit. Inspite of the same, the Urban Land Tax officer, first respondent herein, has assessed the same by his order dated 14.4.76 in the joint names of the petitioners for Fasli 1385. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent herein and the latter by its order dated 6.4.77 which is also impugned, has negatived the claim of the petitioner for separate assessment and remanded the matter with respect to quantum of assessment -to the first respondent for fresh disposal.

(3.) IN the light of the above statutory provision, now I shall consider the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. IN Karunakaran and brothers T. R., M/s, v. State of Tamil Nadu , 1985 W.L.R. 482, the Division Bench of this Court, after referring to definition section 2 (6) and section 5 of the Act has concluded thus:- (Para 7) " Admittedly, notwithstanding the fact that the two separated portions of S. No. 329 are not separately recorded in the names of the two INdependent owners, the fact remains that the area which has fallen to the share of each of the two families in question in the partition dated 8th July, 1939 in S. No. 329 will be the land which is comprised in S. No. 329. There is, however, no jurisdiction in the assessing authority to levy tax on urban land which is not owned by any person. IN other words, only such urban land as is owned by each family will alone be liable to tax under S.5. A composite valuation and taxation for the purpose of Sec.5 in respect of S. No. 329 is, therefore, clearly bad. A view similar to the one which we have taken above has found favour with the Division Bench of this Court in Messrs. Sarada Binding Works. Madras v. Asst. Commissioner of Urban Land Tax Madras , 92 LW 718. IN paragraph 9 of this decision the Division Bench observed as follows. ",.A con-joint reading of sec .5 and the definition of each urban land. merely indicates that the land held by a person in a particular survey number should be taken as a unit of charge and the entire holding of the person cannot be treated as a unit of charge except when his entire holding is in one survey number. Thus, the levy under the Act is in respect of that urban land which is owned by an individual in a particular survey number. Take a case where a land comprised in a particular survey number i s owned separately by ten individuals. As per the charging section tax has to be levied separately on the ten holdings by estimating the market value of the land in each holding if the owner has more than one item of urban land situate in more than one survey number, the entire holding of the owner is not taken as a unit, but the land owned by him in each survey number is taken as unit for purposes of valuation. Thus if urban lands in a survey number are owned by various individuals each portion of the survey number owned by different individuals is to be separately valued..." These observations have our respectful concurrence." Similar view has been taken by the subsequent Division Bench in Messrs. Sarada Binding Works, Madras v. Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax Madras , 92 L.W. 718.