T.Lakshmi Narayana Rao vs State of TamilNadu

WP No. 34981 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAVEEKUMAR
WP No. 34981 of 2022
and WMP.No.34413 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA011591332022}
T.Lakshmi Narayana Rao
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply
Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 010.
2. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation,
Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.
3. The Regional Deputy Commissioner (North),
No.62, Basin Bridge Road, Old Washermenpet,
Chennai-600 021.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking Writ of certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 3rd
respondent comprised in the impugned Notice No.10/22-23/568301 dated
21.07.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 all proceedings pursuant thereto and
quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural
justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Prahalad Bhat
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Sriram, G.A., for R1
Mr.E.C. Ramesh,
Standing Counsel, for R2 & R3
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )

WP No. 34981 of 2022
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated
28.05.2022 and the consequential proceedings in Notice No.10/22-23/563301,
dated 21.07.2022.
2. The case of the petitioner is that initially his father received a notice
dated 15.02.2008, which was served on 25.06.2008, proposing to enhance the
property tax from Rs.12,984/- to Rs.48,896/- by way of general revision. The
petitioner submitted his objections on 30.06.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed a civil suit in OS.No.6739 of 2008 before the XVIII Assistant Judge, City
Civil Court, Chennai, seeking a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants
and their officials from demanding enhanced tax until his objections were
considered.
3. The suit was ultimately decreed on 23.12.2009, whereby the XVIII
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, restrained the defendants or anyone
claiming under them from passing a final assessment order without considering
the objections of the petitioner. Thereafter, a final warrant notice seems to have
been issued on 11.02.2017 and another notice proposing a general revision was
issued on 24.09.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted his objections to
the proposed general revision on 03.01.2019. A joint inspection was conducted
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )

WP No. 34981 of 2022
on 15.09.2021. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed by the third
respondent on 21.07.2022 fixing half early property tax at Rs.44,415/- with
effect from 1998-99.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property
originally stood in the name of the petitioner’s father, Mr.T.S.Ramachandra
Rao, who passed away on 26.12.2001. Subsequently, after the death of the
petitioner’s mother on 17.11.2007, the petitioner acquired the property by
succession.
5. The learned counsel submitted that, though the impugned proceedings
dated 28.05.2022 were issued against the petitioner, the consequential notice of
demand, dated 21.07.2022, was issued against the dead person and therefore,
the same is unsustainable in law.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that, by failing to consider the
objections dated 30.06.2008 and 03.01.2019, the third respondent had violated
the decree passed in OS.No.6739 of 2008. The learned counsel contended that
the impugned order ought not to have been passed without considering the
petitioner's objections. As the impugned proceedings were passed in violation of
the principles of natural justice, the learned counsel submitted that the same
were liable to be quashed and the matter may be remitted to the respondents for
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )

WP No. 34981 of 2022
fresh consideration of the petitioner's objections and passing of appropriate
orders.
7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3
contended that the petitioner's objections had been referred to at Serial No.3 in
the reference column of the impugned proceedings and, therefore, it could be
presumed that the objections had been considered. The learned Standing
Counsel further contended that an effective alternative remedy of appeal was
available before the Taxation Appeal Committee under Section 100 of the
Urban Local Body Act, 1998, and, therefore, the petitioner could be relegated to
the appellate forum.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. In the present case, the petitioner obtained a judgment and decree from
the Civil Court, whereby, the respondents have been restrained from passing a
final assessment order without considering the objections of the petitioner. In
the objections dated 03.01.2019, the petitioner once again brought to the
knowledge of the authorities about the death of his father on 26.12.2001 and
also judgment and decree passed by the XVIII Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai in OS.No.6739 of 2008. However, a perusal of the impugned order
would reveal that the objections of the petitioner dated 30.06.2008 had not been
considered. Though the objections dated 03.01.2019 have been referred to in the
impugned order, there is no discussion on the same and no reason is assigned by
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )

WP No. 34981 of 2022
the respondent for rejecting the objections in both the replies. The respondent
has merely determined the half-yearly property tax payable on the basis of the
inspection report. It is well settled that reasons are the heartbeat of every order.
In the absence of reasons, it would be difficult for the petitioner to raise specific
grounds of challenge even before the appellate authority. The non-consideration
of the replies is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the
impugned order cannot be sustained.
10. It is also well settled that the High Court, in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may entertain a writ
petition notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy in certain
circumstances, including where the proceedings are vitiated by violation of the
principles of natural justice. In the present case, the respondent has failed to
consider the judgment and decree of the Civil Court and has also failed to
consider the petitioner's objections. In such circumstances, the existence of an
alternative remedy would not, by itself, bar the maintainability of the present
Writ Petition.
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is
maintainable and is inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings and issue the
following directions:
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )

WP No. 34981 of 2022
i) The impugned proceedings dated 28.05.2022 and the consequential
proceedings dated 21.07.2022 are set aside, and the matter is remanded back to
the third respondent, who shall consider the matter afresh and pass orders in
accordance with law.
ii) The third respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to
the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to submit any further objections, along
with supporting documents, at the time of personal hearing.
iii) The third respondent shall consider the objections dated 30.06.2008
and 03.01.2019, along with any further objections and documents submitted by
the petitioner, before passing fresh orders. The fresh orders shall be passed
within a period of four weeks from the date of the personal hearing.
iv) In the meantime, the petitioner shall pay 50% of the enhanced
property tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order
and shall continue to pay the same until the fresh orders are passed.
12.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
PVS
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )

WP No. 34981 of 2022
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of TamilNadu
Municipal Administration and Water Supply
Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 010.
2. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation,
Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.
3. The Regional Deputy Commissioner (North)
No.62, Basin Bridge Road, Old Washermenpet,
Chennai-600 021.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )

WP No. 34981 of 2022
S.RAVEEKUMAR, J.
PVS
WP No. 34981 of 2022
26-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )