Take decision on property tax revision, Madras HC tells Chennai corporation
Chennai: Madras high court has directed commissioner of Chennai corporation to take a decision regarding revision of property tax within Chennai city, which was revised two decades ago.
A Division Bench Comprising Justice N.Kirubakaran and Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, before which a matter relating to to illegal encroachment in Lake Area, Nungambakkam came up for hearing on Tuesday, directed the commissioner to revise the property tax, which was revised in 1998 and file a report before the court in the next hearing. When the matter was taken up by the court on Tuesday, Commissioner of corporation Karthikeyan and Rajesh Lakhoni the CMDA, member secretary, appeared before the Bench. The commissioner filed a proposal to revise the property tax in the Chennai city.
T. Mohan, the counsel for the petitioner, said though the building was completely sealed by authorities some people encroached the plot by putting make-shift shamiyana and conducted prayers.
The bench said "Everybody has got right to conduct prayer as per law in the places of worship or in the residence, but not in the public place causing nuisance to the public. Therefore, it is the duty of police officials and corporation authorities to remove such encroachments in accordance with law. The commissioner of police is directed to enquire and identify the persons who are responsible for such encroachment on the pavement opposite to the subject property in this writ petition and file a report before this court."
Referring to inaction of officials despite various orders on the illegal constructions and encroachments in its order the bench said "Unless the court orders are implemented properly, people will lose faith in the system which is not good for democracy. Therefore, member secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, and the commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, are directed to take inventory of the number of orders being passed against them and the number of orders being complied with and to give appropriate directions to their subordinates to implement the orders which have not been implemented so far and file a report in the next hearing.
Further, they are directed to devise a mechanism fixing step by step responsibility on the officials and unless such a responsibility is fixed, no one is going to comply with the court orders." The bench adjourned the matter to August 3 for further hearing.
