The Madras High Court on Friday directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to issue advertisements in newspapers stating that the recent property tax revision had been done on the basis of court orders and that any person or political party opposing the revision would be doing so at the risk of being hauled up for contempt of court.
Revision after 20 years
Justices N. Kirubakaran and Krishnan Ramasamy told Additional Advocate General C. Manishankar that it was unfair on the part of certain political parties to oppose the tax revision, which had been done after a gap of 20 years, and after skipping three revisions which should have taken place once in five years as per the rules.
“You issue advertisements in newspapers stating that the revision has been done only on the basis of court orders. If any political party makes a hue and cry, it shall be hauled up for contempt of court. What were these parties doing all these years? They speak in a different tone when they are in power and in a diametrically opposite tone when they are not in power.
“How can the Corporation function without funds? It did not have money even to pay damages during the 2015 floods. Now that the limits of the Corporation have been expanded, it will become all the more difficult to provide basic amenities without revising the property tax rates, which were fixed somewhere in 1998,” Mr. Justice Kirubakaran said.
He went on to point out that the revisions that should have taken place in 2003, 2008 and 2015 were not done because successive governments were apprehensive of earning the wrath of the people.
“I think all those who served as Corporation councillors during this period should be imposed with costs for having made the civic body starve,” he said.
‘Yielding to pressure’
Referring to the present government too having reduced the quantum of revision for rented residential premises in urban local bodies from 100% to 50% within days of announcing the first revision on the basis of court orders passed on July 17, the judge said: “You are also yielding to pressure by reducing the revision.”
He later directed the officials to produce details of the revision that ought to have been carried out in the last three revisions and adjourned further hearing of the case to Tuesday.
