(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned communication issued by the second respondent herein in Ma2Aa4B4/001542/2026 signed on 25.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents to refix the property tax pertaining to the petitioner's house property with old assessment No.115/10760, new assessment No.115/033/900814, in Ward No.WD033, Madurai Corporation by following the decree dated 10.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.621 of 2018 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned communication dated 25.02.2026 and to quash the same, and consequently to direct the respondents to refix the property tax pertaining to the petitioner’s house property bearing old Assessment No.115/10760 and new Assessment No.115/033/900814, situated in Ward No.WD033, Madurai Corporation, by following the decree dated 10.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.621 of 2018 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid property and that the same has been used purely for residential purposes and not for any commercial activity. While so, when a demand notice was earlier issued on 14.07.2016 and assessment was made, the petitioner approached the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai, by filing O.S.No.621 of 2018. After a full-fledged trial and upon consideration of the case on merits, the said demand notice dated 14.07.2016 was declared null and void. The Court further directed the respondent Corporation to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and to reassess the tax in respect of the petitioner’s property. However, the said directions were not complied with, and the impugned communication has now been issued demanding arrears of tax to the tune of Rs.3,73,744/-. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

3. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation would submit that it is true that a decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, a notice for fresh assessment was issued on 18.11.2024 and measurements were also taken. It is further submitted that the petitioner subsequently requested that the property be treated as residential in nature. Considering the same, fresh assessment orders were passed on 21.12.2024, based on which the impugned demand notice has been issued. It is also contended that only upon payment of the arrears, the request for conversion of the property from commercial to residential could be considered, and accordingly, the impugned order has been passed.

4. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. At the time when the earlier proceedings were initiated in the year 2016, the provisions of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 alone were applicable. This Court, in Shanmugha Nadar vs. The Corporation of Madurai (1980 (2) MLJ 140), has held that unless there is an express bar to the filing of a suit, the existence of an alternative remedy would not preclude a party from approaching the Civil Court. Therefore, in the absence of any such bar at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was justified in filing the civil suit. The Civil Court, after contest, passed a decree which is binding on both the petitioner as well as the respondent Corporation. By the said decree, the earlier demand was set aside and the Corporation was directed to pass a fresh order of assessment.

6. It is seen that the respondent Corporation initiated proceedings pursuant to the decree only on 18.11.2024 by issuing notice to the petitioner for fresh inspection. Subsequently, inspection was carried out and an order came to be passed on 21.12.2024. The operative portion of the order dated 21.12.2024 reads as follows:

               

                 

7. Thus, on a perusal of the same, it is evident that though the Civil Court had specifically mandated the respondent Corporation to issue a show cause notice and thereafter pass fresh orders of assessment, the second respondent, after conducting inspection, has straightaway passed the above order determining the liability.

8. As a matter of fact, after the inspection, a show cause notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner, and only after considering the objections, if any, a proper order of assessment ought to have been passed. The impugned order suffers from two fundamental defects. Firstly, no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. Secondly, the order merely determines the arrears without undertaking a proper reassessment of the property tax in respect of the petitioner’s property.

9. In both respects, the impugned order is in clear violation of the decree passed and, therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned demand, which is based on such an order, is also liable to be set aside. It must, however, be noted that in the present statutory framework under the Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 there exists a bar on the institution of civil suits. Nevertheless, the decree already passed by the Civil Court continues to bind the parties.

10. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is ordered on the following terms:

               (i) The impugned communication of the second respondent dated 25.02.2026 is set aside.

               (ii) The respondent Corporation is at liberty to issue a show cause notice, as mandated in the decree, based on the inspection already conducted, and thereafter, consider the objections of the petitioner, if any, and pass a reasoned and speaking order of assessment in accordance with law. Only thereafter, the respondent Corporation may determine the arrears, if any, and issue a consequential demand.

No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.