Latest news with #GJayachandran
New Indian Express
24-04-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Madras HC imposes Rs 75,000 cost on man for attempting to block property tax hike in Kodaikanal
MADURAI: Dismissing a plea moved by a man seeking to prevent the Kodaikanal municipality in Dindigul district from collecting enhanced property tax for his building, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs 75,000 on the litigant for attempting to hinder the revenue collection of a local body. A division bench of Justices G Jayachandran and S Srimathy made the direction in a plea filed by Baskar Vincent. The judges stated that the petitioner claimed to be the owner of a residential building for which property tax was fixed as Rs 13,398. Aggrieved over the municipality's recent tax hike, he challenged the general revision. The counsel of the Kodaikanal municipality stated that the local bodies provide for appeal if any assessee is aggrieved by enhancement of property tax. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the revision, he has to take recourse to the statutory remedy, and the public interest litigation is hence an abuse of the process of law, it stated. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the court said that it is the 'private' interest of the writ petitioner which is projected as a public interest with an intention to stall the process of collecting revenue. Under the guise of residential premises, he had converted the property in the hills of Kodaikanal into a commercial building by letting it out for homestay purposes. By camouflaging his grievance under the garb of a PIL, an attempt is made to prevent the economic flow of the local body, the court added, before directing the petitioner to pay Rs 75,000 to the Kodaikanal municipality.
Time of India
23-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Madras HC imposes Rs75,000 cost on litigant for attempting to affect revenue collection of local body
Madurai: Dismissing a plea by a man seeking to prevent the Kodaikanal municipality in Dindigul district from collecting an enhanced rate of property tax for his property, Madras high court imposed a cost of 75,000 on the litigant for attempting to affect the revenue collection of a local body. The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Baskar Vincent. The petitioner owns a residential building in Kodaikanal, and the property tax is fixed at the rate of 13,398. Aggrieved by the enhancement of the tax by the Kodaikanal municipality, the petitioner filed the present petition. The petitioner's counsel, by referring to a circular issued by the directorate of municipal administration in Dec 2024, submitted that there cannot be a general revision for a property which was already assessed for tax on April 1, 2022. However, the govt pleader submitted that the circular issued by the directorate of municipal administration was wrongly interpreted by the petitioner to hinder the process of collecting revenue by the local bodies. The standing counsel for Kodaikanal municipality submitted that the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act provides for an appeal remedy if any assessee is aggrieved by the enhancement of property tax. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the revision, he must take recourse to the statutory remedy, and the public interest litigation is an abuse of the process of law. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo A division bench of justice G Jayachandran and justice S Srimathy observed that, upon perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the court finds that it is a private interest of the petitioner projected as a public interest with the intention to stall the process of collecting revenue by enhancing the property tax by virtue of a general guideline. The petitioner converted his residential premises into a commercial building by letting it out for homestay purposes in Kodaikanal. By disguising his grievance under the guise of public interest litigation, an attempt was made to stymie the economic flow of the local body, the judges observed. The judges noted that the court finds this case to be one where the jurisdiction of public interest litigation is grossly abused by vested interested persons, requiring dismissal with exemplary costs. Hence, the judges dismissed the petition and imposed the cost.
