AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aggrieved by the orders of the District Revenue Officer passed under Sec. 20 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, the petitioners filed
revisions before the Special Commissioner under Sec. 30 of the Act. The Special Commissioner rejected the revisions on the ground that he has
no jurisdiction to deal with the revisions against the orders passed by the Tribunal and no appeal/revision is directed to the Commissioner against
the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions challenging the orders of the District Revenue Officer.
However, from the reading of the amended provisions of the Act 26 of 1997, I find that the stand taken by the Commissioner cannot be sustained
in law.
Originally, under Sec. 4 of the Act, the Government was empowered to constitute as many Tribunals as may be required for the purposes of the
Act and each Tribunal shall consist of one person only who shall be a Judicial Officer not below the rank of Subordinate Judge. Before the said
Tribunal so constituted, the assessees can file revision under Sec. 20 against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Sec.10 or
under Sec. 11 of the Act. In view of the amendment to Sec. 4 of the Act by Act 26 of 1997 now the-said power has been vested with the officer
not below the rank of District Revenue Officer to act as the Tribunal. In the present case, the petitioners have filed the revisions against the orders
passed by the Assistant Commissioner before the District Revenue Officer and the District Revenue Officer has also passed the orders, which are
impugned in these writ petitions.
Now the question is whether the petitioners can file further revisions before the Commissioner under Sec. 30 of the Act. The Commissioner is of
the opinion that he has no jurisdiction under Sec. 30 of the Act to entertain the appeal/revision against the order passed by the District Revenue
Officer. Such a stand of the Commissioner cannot be sustained in view of the provisions of the Act 26 of 1997.
The restriction to entertain such a revision under unamended Sec. 30 of the Act to the effect ""not being proceedings in respect of which an
appeal lies to it under Sec. 20"" has been omitted in Sec. 4 of Act 26 of 1997. Once such restriction has been removed, the Commissioner is
having power to examine the records of ""any proceedings"" under the Act to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceedings or the
correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein. Therefore, after the amendment, the Commissioner is having power to
entertain revisions under Sec. 30 of the Act against the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer under Sec. 20 of the Act.
This view of mine also finds support from the note-file of the Government in which it is noted the necessity for bringing in such amendments by
Act 26 of 1997. From the note-file I am able to see that it was felt that against the order passed by the Tribunal headed by the administrative
officers, there must be some appeal or revision. On that basis, the amendment was proposed, which has been passed by the Legislature.
Therefore, the Commissioner cannot take a view that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the revisions against the orders passed by the District
Revenue Officer under Sec. 20 of the Act.
In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot sustain the writ petitions before this Court without filing revisions before the Commissioner and
on that ground, the writ petitions are dismissed. The petitioners are permitted to file revisions under Sec. 30 of the Act before the Commissioner
within one month from today. On filing of such revisions, the Commissioner is directed to entertain the same and dispose them of on merits and in
accordance with law exercising his powers under Sec. 30 of the Act.
With the above observation, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps are closed.