AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Sudhakar, J.—The above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the Kuzhithurai Municipality to set aside the judgment and decree
passed in various Civil Miscellaneous Appeals dated C.M.A. Nos. 15 to 36, 38 to 61 of 2005 and 5 to 12 of 2006 dated 31.07.2007 on the file
of the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. When these Civil Revision Petitions came up for admission, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner/Municipality referred to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, particularly to the provisions of the
Amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998. It was stated that the said notice was issued under Rule 9 of Schedule IV of Tamil Nadu District
Municipality Act, 1920 and confirmed by the Municipality. The matter was taken on appeal to the Taxation Appeal Committee in terms of Section
89 of the Amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998 and further appeal has been preferred to the District Court, Nagercoil in terms of Section
89(3) of the Amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998.
In one of the edition of the Madras Law Journal publication relating to the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, it is published as hereunder:
''To be read after the existing foot note 1 to Section 81 of the Act''
Government have not notified the date of coming into force of the Amending Acts 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998. Till the amendment Acts are
notified, by the Government, the erstwhile provisions relating to property tax in Section 81 to 91 would be in force.
A doubt arose as to whether the filing of appeal before the Taxation Appeals Committee and further appeal to the District Judge u/s 89(3) of the
Amending Acts 65 of 1997 as amended by Act 34 of 1998 is valid as the said amending Act 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998 were not notified.
Therefore, while issuing notice of admission to the respondent, this Court requested the Additional Advocate General Mr. T. Raja, to assist the
Court and clarify the position with regard to the two Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Second Amendment) Act 65 of 1997 and Act 34 of 1998 and
the consequence thereof.
Shri. T. Raja, the learned Additional Advocate General, the counsel for the Municipality Shri. Raja Kumar and the two of the counsel appearing
for the respondent viz. Shri. K.N. Thambi and Shri. Sreekumaran Nair, submitted their arguments. Based on the arguments made by the respective
counsel it become clear that the order under challenge passed by the District Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in terms of Section 89 of the
Amending Act was one without jurisdiction. The issue in all the Civil Revision Petitions narrowed down to the question of law, as to whether the
order under challenge is passed by a Court having jurisdiction and hence they are taken up for final disposal as the merits of the case will be of no
relevance at the point of time.
The brief facts of the case of the revision petitioner:
The respondent is the owner of several shops in Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. They were assessed to property tax by the Municipality. A
circular for general revision was issued by the Commissioner for Municipal Administration on 09.01.1993, which document was marked as Ex.R1,
before the lower authority. As per Ex.R1 a direction to Municipal Councils and Township Committees was issued to take up quinquennial revision
of property tax from 01.04.1993. As per the guidelines given under the Circular, in the year 1993 Special Notices were issued under Rule 9 of
Schedule IV of Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act, 1920. On that earlier occasion the respondents herein filed Writ Petition No. 19491 of
1994, challenging the notice issued by the Municipality seeking to enhance the tax in general revision. This Hon''ble Court in the year 2001 set
aside the individual notices issued by the municipality and remanded the matter to the Municipal authority on the ground that no reason has been
given in the notice for general revision of tax. The Municipality was directed to issue fresh notice under Rule 9 of the said Act. Accordingly, 54
fresh notices were issued on 09.03.2002 by the Municipality calling upon the respondent to file objection, if any. It appears that the respondent did
not given any reply. Therefore, the enhanced revision as per notice were confirmed on 10.06.2002. Thereafter a series of communication ensued
between the municipality and the respondent. The respondent requested the municipality to give them further time to give their objection and also
sought for the copy of the notice issued under Rule 9. It was indicated that substantial amounts have been paid towards the tax pursuant to orders
of Court. This was stated in respondent''s letter dated 16.02.2002. On 19.03.2003, the Municipality finally informed the respondent that if there is
no proper reply from the respondent, they will treat the matter as final and closed."" On 08.05.2003, after sufficient time and proper intimation, the
municipality confirmed the notice issued as per rule 9 of Schedule IV of Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act, 1920. This was communicated in
1619/94/m1 dated 08.05.2003, indicating that the respondent has a right to file appeal. On 27.06.2003, the respondent was directed to pay the
arrears of tax. Once again, the respondent by letter dated 24.07.2003 requested the municipality to issue a fresh Rule 9 notice and for sufficient
opportunity to file revision or appeal against the assessment of tax. It was suitably replied by the municipality on 09.08.2000, stating that notice u/s
9 was properly served and all the objections raised were rejected. On 29.12.2003, a duplicate copy of the notice issued u/s 9 Schedule IV of the
Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act was given to the respondent. The Municipality also demanded the payment of tax as determined by them.
Aggrieved by the enhancement of tax, the respondent filed appeals before the Taxation Appeals Committee. The Taxation Appeals Committee
reduced the amount of tax marginally by various orders dated 16.07.2004 and the Municipality gave effect to such order. As against the order of
the Taxation Appeals Committee dated 16.07.2004, signed by the Commissioner on 19.07.2004 and duly served, the respondent filed appeals
before the District Court, Nagercoil as provided u/s 89(3) of the District Municipality Act, 1920, amending Act 65 of 1997, which were taken on
file by the District Court, Nagercoil as Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. After a full fledged enquiry, taking into consideration all aspects of the claim of
the respondent passed the impugned judgment and decree further reducing the tax. The Municipality aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree
passed by the District Judge are before this Court in revision.
At the outset, without going into the merits as regards the quantum of tax as ordered by the Taxation Appeals Committee and modified by the
District Court in appeal, the first issue that has to be considered by this Court is on the very nature of the proceedings before the Taxation Appeals
Committee and the jurisdiction of the District Judge, to entertain the appeal under Amending Acts 65 of 1997 as amended by Act 34 of 1998,
which were not notified. A circular is placed before this Court by Mr. T. Raja, Additional Advocate General, which reads as follows:
In Amending Acts 65 of 97 and 34 of 98, certain sections of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and other Corporation Acts, were amended.
The amendments mainly relate to property tax management in Municipalities & Corporations. In section 2 of Act No. 65 of 97, it is specifically
indicated that the amendments would come into effect from the date on which the effective date is notified by the Government. In Act no No-34 of
98, which is an amending Act for 65 of 97, eventhough it has been mentioned that it would come into immediate effect, since the main Act of 65 of
97 itself is yet to be made effective, Act No. 34 of 98 also not come into effect.
In the situation, the 2002 & 2003 editions of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act published by the Madras Law Journal office, Chennai, contain
the amendments have been given effect by Government, these amendments should not be implemented. Till the amendments are notified by
Government, to come into effect, the erstwhile provisions relating to property tax viz. Section 81 to 91 in respect of Municipalities and similar
erstwhile section of Corporations would be deemed to be in force.
The above position is to be borne in mind while handling property tax items.
While it is true that the Taxation Appeals Committee in terms of Section 89 of Amending Act 65 of 1997, does not have the force in the eye of
law. The Taxation Appeals Committee does exists as provided u/s 23-A of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920; which was inserted by
Tamil Nadu Act, 16 of 1989, which reads as follows;
23-A. Taxation Appeals Committee. -Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act.
(1) For every Municipality, there shall be a Taxation Appeals Committee which shall consist of the chairman of the municipal council who shall also
be the chairman of the Taxation Appeals Committee, (and four councillors selected by the council)
(2) the business of the Taxation Appeals Committee shall be transacted in accordance with the rules made by the State Government in the behalf.
Since the amending Act 65 of 1997 and 34 of 1998 are not in force, the consequence thereof will be the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District
Municipality Act, 1920, de hors the amending Act will be applicable. Therefore in so far as the property tax is concerned Section 81(2) and 91
will be applicable. Schedule IV of the Tamil Nadu District Muncipality Act, 1920, provides the manner in which the appeals are to be dealt with.
The relevant Sections are 23, 23-A, 24, 25, 26, 26-A. Section 23-A of Schedule IV was omitted by Act XXX of 1970 and inserted as Section
23-A by Act 16 of 1989 as stated above. Therefore, even though amending Act 65 of 1997 was not notified, the Taxation Appeals Committee
remains in the statue by virtue by Section 23-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act, 1920. The Schedule IV provides for payment of
certain amounts of property tax as determined by the appropriate authority. The only difficulty that arises now is with regard to the remedy to the
aggrieved owner of the property against the order passed by the Taxation Appeals Committee.
It was submitted by the Additional Advocate General as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Municipality, the order passed in Taxation
Appeals Committee is proper and in terms of Section 23-A of the Act. However, the further appeal to the District Judge, u/s 89(3) of the
Amending Act, filed by the respondent herein is without jurisdiction and the judgment and the decree is a nullity as it has been passed by a forum
which lacks jurisdiction. It was therefore contended that the judgment and decree passed in all the C.M.A.s challenged in these revision petitions
should be set aside.
In the light of the circular issued stating that the two amending Acts have not been notified, it is apparent that the provisions of Section 81(2)
and 89 of Amending Acts 65 of 97 and 34 of 98 does not have force in the eye of law. Therefore, the question will be whether the order passed
by the District Court can be saved even though such proceedings were not supported by the statutory prescription. The immediate answer to the
above issue falls from the decision of the Honourable Supreme in the case of Kiran Singh and others v. Chaman Paswan and others reported in
AIR 1954 Supreme Court 340. In the said decision an issue arose as to whether an appeal from the decree of subordinate Judge will lie to the
District court or to the High Court based on the valuation in the plaint, which was subsequently amended. Further question that arose was if as per
the original valuation, the District Court having entertained the appeal and passed a decree and judgment, if found to be later not competent to hear
the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, whether the decree and judgment can be saved or is it a nullity. In paragraph 6 of the above said
decision the Honourable apex Court held as follows:
The answer to these contentions must depend on what the position in law is when a Court entertain a suit or an appeal over which it has not
jurisdiction and what the effect of Section 11 of the Suit Valuation Act is on that position. It is a fundamental principle well-established that a
decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or
relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defeat of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial or
whether, it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pose any decree, and such a defect cannot
be cured even by consent of parties. If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles
governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District, Court of Monghyr was coram non judice, and that its judgment and decree would be
nullities. The question is what is the effect of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act on this position.
In view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court as above and the fact that the amending Act 65 of 1997 as amended by Act 34 of 1998
has not been notified, the judgment and decree passed by the District Court in terms of Section 89 of Amending Act 65 of 1997 will be without
any jurisdiction and therefore such an invalid order cannot be sustained.
If the remedy pursued by the respondent before the District Court is not available under the statute then what is the remedy available. There
are various decisions of this Court for over two decades which answers the point as well when the owner of the property is aggrieved by the
determination of the amount of property tax, they have resorted to file the civil suit. A number of decisions have been reported, which is as
hereunder:
1953(1) MLJ 128
K.M.S. Abdul Hasan Vs. The Tiruvarur Municipality,
Sri Vallaba Ganesar Devasthanam and Others Vs. A. Anandavadivelu Mudaliar and Others,
Chellammal Vs. Alandur Municipality,
Magdoom Sheriff alias Sultan Sheriff Vs. Kancheepuram Municipality,
2001(3) MLJ 815
The South India Hosiery Manufacturers Association Vs. Textiles Committee, South Zone and Others,
Therefore the order passed by the Taxation Appeals Committee in terms of Section 23-A is within jurisdiction. A contention was made by
Mr.K.N. Thambi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the order was not passed by the Appellate Committee, but by the
Commissioner. Therefore, there is an infirmity in the order and it is without reason. That can be challenged before the Civil Court or appropriate
forum as may be advised. It is only the appeal before the District Judge filed pursuant to Section 89 of the Amending Act 65 of 1997 and Act 34
of 1998, and the judgment and decree passed that will be without jurisdiction and nullity. The respondent have challenged the order passed by the
Taxation Appeals Committee and seriously pursued the same before the District Court but under provisions of law which is not notified. If the
revision petitioner challenges the same before a proper forum, the question of limitation has to be gone into by the said forum, keeping in mind the
provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the result, all the revision petitions are allowed and the judgment and decree dated
31.07.2007, passed in C.M.A. Nos. 15 to 36, 38 to 61 of 2005 and 5 to 12 of 2006, on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at
Nagercoil are set aside. Considering the fact that both the petitioner as well as the respondent have been pursuing the matter under the
misconception of law, there will be no order as to the costs.