Property-tax mutation restored subject to the final outcome of pending civil proceedings.

The petitioner, M. Sankaran, claimed that his deceased father, Meenashi Sundaram Asari, who died on 25 December 2019, had executed an unregistered Will dated 3 November 2016 bequeathing 12 shops and four houses exclusively to him, excluding his siblings.

Based on the Will, the property-tax assessments relating to the properties were mutated in the petitioner’s name on 11 February 2026.

The third respondent subsequently cancelled the mutation by order dated 1 July 2026, allegedly acting on a legal notice issued by the seventh respondent.

The petitioner contended that the legal notice relied upon in the impugned order had not been served on him.

The official respondents defended the cancellation on the ground that the earlier mutation had been made subject to cancellation without notice if suppression of facts was subsequently discovered.

The petitioner had also instituted O.S. No. 797 of 2025 before the Sub Court, Tenkasi, seeking eviction of respondents 4 to 6 from one of the shops.

Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s property-tax mutation, based on a legal notice allegedly not served on him, was liable to be quashed for violation of procedural fairness?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the property-tax mutation despite the absence of a No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs and the absence of demonstrated proof that the Will was legally executed?

Whether the status of the property-tax mutation should remain subject to the final adjudication of the pending civil suit concerning the competing claims to the property?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine the legality of the administrative cancellation of the property-tax mutation.

It applied the principle that mutation or property-tax assessment is an administrative and fiscal entry and does not conclusively determine title or the validity of a Will; competing proprietary and testamentary claims are appropriately determined in civil proceedings.

The Court also considered the principles of procedural fairness arising from the petitioner’s contention that the legal notice relied upon by the authority had not been communicated to him.

Although the Court noted that the impugned order had been passed on the basis of a legal notice allegedly not served on the petitioner, it found that the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to exclusive mutation was itself uncertain.

The petitioner had not shown that he obtained No Objection Certificates from the other legal heirs, nor had he established at that stage that the unregistered Will dated 3 November 2016 was executed in accordance with law.

Since the rival claims involved the validity and effect of the Will and the rights of the deceased owner’s legal heirs, the Court treated the pending civil suit as the appropriate forum for final determination.

Nevertheless, to preserve the position prevailing after the earlier mutation, it directed restoration of the mutation subject to the outcome of O.S. No. 797 of 2025.

However, it directed the official respondents to restore the property-tax mutation effected in the petitioner’s name on 11 February 2026, expressly subject to the final outcome of O.S. No. 797 of 2025 pending before the Sub Court, Tenkasi.

The Court further directed that all other legal heirs be heard in the relevant proceedings.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.