Facts
The petitioner challenged a Form-4 property-tax demand notice dated 29 July 2026 and a consequential Form-7 attachment notice dated 7 September 2026 concerning his property bearing Assessment No.115/099/901665 at Thirupparankundram, Madurai, together with the related newspaper publication.
Source reference: p.2; p.3, para.1The Corporation demanded ₹16,90,456 towards property tax and interest for the period from the first half of 2022–2023 to the first half of 2026–2027.
Source reference: p.3, para.1The petitioner had paid only ₹7,550, allegedly by suppressing the actual extent of construction.
Source reference: p.3, para.2Although planning permission authorised construction of 2,174 sq. ft. comprising a ground floor and first floor, the authorities found construction measuring 6,687 sq. ft., consisting of 3,437 sq. ft. on the ground floor, 2,625 sq. ft. on the first floor and 625 sq. ft. on the second floor.
Source reference: p.3–4, para.3The petitioner sought quashing of the demand and attachment, fresh inspection and reassessment, adjustment of taxes already paid, and protection against auction.
Source reference: p.2During hearing, he undertook to pay the entire disputed amount in instalments.
Source reference: p.5, para.5Issues
1. Whether the Form-4 property-tax demand and consequential Form-7 attachment issued against the petitioner were liable to be quashed on the ground that the property required fresh inspection, measurement and reassessment.
Source reference: p.2; p.3, paras.1–42. Whether the petitioner could be granted time to discharge the assessed tax liability by instalments while restraining immediate auction of the attached property.
Source reference: p.5, paras.5–73. Whether the authorities were required to undertake a fresh inspection and reassessment of the property, and whether the petitioner was required to regularise the unauthorised construction.
Source reference: p.5–6, paras.8–10Law Applied
The Court applied the provisions governing municipal property-tax recovery, including the Form-4 demand and Form-7 attachment procedure, and treated the assessed tax as recoverable when the petitioner had constructed substantially beyond the sanctioned plan and had paid tax only on a suppressed extent of construction.
Source reference: p.3–4, paras.1–4It further applied the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, and the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, under which unauthorised construction must be regularised in accordance with the prevailing law and may otherwise be subjected to enforcement action, including demolition.
Source reference: p.4, para.3; p.6, para.10The Court also exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to permit payment of the admitted or assessed liability by structured instalments, subject to strict compliance with the Court’s directions.
Source reference: p.5, paras.5–7Reasoning
The Court found that the sanctioned plan permitted only 2,174 sq. ft. of construction, whereas the petitioner had constructed 6,687 sq. ft., including an unauthorised second floor.
Source reference: p.3–4, para.3Since the petitioner had paid only ₹7,550 by allegedly suppressing the actual construction, the Court held that the tax evasion justified the demand and attachment and that no concession could be granted regarding the validity of the recovery proceedings.
Source reference: p.3, para.2; p.4, para.4Nevertheless, taking note of the petitioner’s undertaking to pay the entire demand, the Court exercised discretion by allowing payment in six equated monthly instalments.
Source reference: p.5–6, paras.6, 8–9It also directed a fresh inspection and reassessment after notice to the petitioner, while requiring any amount paid to be adjusted against the petitioner’s tax liability.
Source reference: p.5–6, paras.6, 8–9The Court separately preserved the authorities’ power to act against the unauthorised construction if it was not regularised under the applicable planning and municipal laws.
Source reference: p.6, para.10Holding
The writ petition was disposed of without quashing the Form-4 demand or Form-7 attachment.
The petitioner was directed to pay ₹16,90,456 in six equated monthly instalments, with payments due on or before 31 October 2026, 30 November 2026, 31 December 2026, 31 January 2027, 28 February 2027 and 31 March 2027.
Source reference: p.5, para.6Default in any instalment would automatically revoke the concession and permit the respondents to auction the attached property in accordance with law.
Source reference: p.5, para.7The fourth respondent was directed to inspect and reassess the property after issuing notice, completing the exercise within three months of compliance with the order and, in any event, by the end of June 2027.
Source reference: p.5–6, para.8The petitioner was also required to regularise the unauthorised construction; failing such regularisation, the authorities could initiate lawful proceedings, including demolition.
Source reference: p.6, para.10No order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p.6, para.11Original Court PDF
V.Periyasamy,vsThe District Collector,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
