Judgment :- 1. Petitioner owns less than two grounds in the city of Madras, and it is exempted from the payment of Urban Land Tax under Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 1966. On being called upon to pay quit rent by invoking Madras City Land Revenue Act 12 of 1851, he files the writ petition as a public interest litigation to desist the respondents from collecting quit rent, in respect of lands in the city of Madras. 2. He refers to S. 23 of Urban Land Tax Act, which states that urban land tax payable in respect of any urban land shall be in lieu of the quit rent, and any amount due under the Madras City Land Revenue Act 1831. In 1965, when the Madras Urban Land tax Bill was being considered by the Legislative Council, the then Minister in charge of Food had stated that the Government had thought of levying urban land tax to replace the out-dated quit rent. Petitioner relies upon it to contend that, on T.N. Act 12 of 1966 being passed, the right to levy quit rent, ground rent, etc., mentioned in Sec. 23 having been lost because later on under Amendment Acts of 30 of 1971 and 19 of 1973, lower limit of exemption from the payment of urban land tax having been evolved for extents upto two grounds, it would not mean that the right to levy quit rent had revived thereafter, by virtue of the Amendment Acts. On the date when Act 12 of 1966 was passed, the properties now exempted having been covered by it, the right to collect quit rent having been totally lost in view of S. 23, thereafter such a levy cannot be imposed and that was the reason why from 1971 onwards, quit rent had not been collected. It is only in May, 1985 for the first time, second respondent had issued demand notices for the periods from 1st July, 1931 onwards under a misconception, and hence, the demand is illegal. 3. While enacting T.N. Act 12 of 1966, no provision had been made therein to repeal T.N. Act. 12 of 1851. T.N. Act 12 of 1851 still continues to exist in the statute book alongside T.N. Act 12 of 1966. 3. While enacting T.N. Act 12 of 1966, no provision had been made therein to repeal T.N. Act. 12 of 1851. T.N. Act 12 of 1851 still continues to exist in the statute book alongside T.N. Act 12 of 1966. Therefore, only in respect of such of those lands for which urban land tax is collected, it would be in lieu of levy which could be collected under T.N. Act 12 of 1851. As and when certain areas got exempted from levy of tax under T.N. Act 12 of 1966 the liability to pay under T.N. Act 12 of 1851 exists, and is not lost in view of S. 23 of T.N. Act 12 of 1966. 4. The next contention is that the collections have been made without pre-demand under S. 4 of Act 6 of 1867. When he addressed the Collector of Madras on this aspect, he replied on 20th November, 1914 stating that the issue of pre-demand notice is not a necessary one as the officials who collect the dues will have to disclose the arrears, if any, to the land owners while demanding the same. 5. Government files a counter affidavit, but regarding this point taken in para 20 of the affidavit there is no reference made to Act 6 of 1867 at all. In the affidavit filed by petitioner, in paragraphs 4, 5, 20, 21 and 29, he refers to more than one provision found in the said Act. The Governments counter-affidavit neither states that the Act is in force nor it has been repealed. Nowhere it states as to how and why the provisions of this Act relied upon by petitioner, are not applicable or uninvocable. In paragraphs 20 and 21 petitioner states that, without a pre-demand under S. 4 of Act 6 of 1867, the quit rent could not have been collected. Even the Collector who replied him had not referred to the existence or otherwise of S. 4 of the Act. In paragraph 20 he takes another important point that under S. 11 of the Act, any demand for arrears beyond six years would be barred by limitation. This point remains untouched in the counter affidavit. 6. Even the Collector who replied him had not referred to the existence or otherwise of S. 4 of the Act. In paragraph 20 he takes another important point that under S. 11 of the Act, any demand for arrears beyond six years would be barred by limitation. This point remains untouched in the counter affidavit. 6. This is how counter affidavits are filed, and in this case, in spite of the fact that the writ petition had been filed as a public interest litigation and more than one section of a particular Act having been relied upon to claim that the demand is illegal, the counter affidavit does not deal with those points. Is it not expected of a Government to state that the said Act has been already repealed and that petitioner is relying upon an obsolete enactment? Instead, it just groups paragraphs 1 to 15 of petitioners affidavit together, and deals with them in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the counter affidavit. Paragraphs 16 to 25 each containing one sentence are dealt with in one paragraph, which is not even numbered. Paragraphs 26 to 31 are dealt with by one sentence alone in an unnumbered paragraph. The counter affidavit assigns numbers for first five paragraphs, but later on, the other paragraphs are not numbered, either because there was no time, or got tired of numbering the paragraphs. 7. In paragraphs 16 to 25, petitioner had referred the following seven points: 1. Belated demand of quit rent for 12 years is illegal and invalid; 2. By misusing urban land tax receipts, quit rents are collected; 3. In view of S. 4 of Act 6 of 1967, there being no pre-demand, it is illegal; 4. Quit rent is collected even in May 1984, in advance for fasli 1394, and hence illegal; 5. Act 12 of 1951 being a pre-Independence Act, an employee of the Government cannot be allowed to determine the quit rent, without any guidelines, and hence illegal; 6. S. 3 of Act 12 of 1851 is undemocratic and unconstitutional; and 7. Under Rule 25-B of G.O. No. 486(R) dated 19-12-1908, certain Rates having been fixed, as tabulated in the counter affidavit; demand and collection at higher rates, is illegal. 8. S. 3 of Act 12 of 1851 is undemocratic and unconstitutional; and 7. Under Rule 25-B of G.O. No. 486(R) dated 19-12-1908, certain Rates having been fixed, as tabulated in the counter affidavit; demand and collection at higher rates, is illegal. 8. Yet the counter affidavit in paras 3 to 5 just extracts S. 23 of Urban Land Tax Act and S. 1 of Act XII of 1851, and after curiously adverting to what could be done in respect of two grounds and less of urban lands, it merely concludes by stating that the levy is legal, valid and that all other allegations to the contrary are incorrect. Should not each point taken be specifically dealt with in counter affidavit filed in defence of the State? Failure to do so results in repeated adjournments being granted and wasting of courts precious time. 9. As for paragraphs 26 to 31 in the affidavit of the petitioner, they have been disposed of, by the sole expression that they ‘are baseless’. Petitioner refers to the nature of levy as found in page 239 para 26 of the particular Government publication, and also claims that any arrears beyond six years is barred by limitation in view of S. 11 of Act 6 of 1867, and that levy of quit rent on a citizen of Madras being legacy of British colonial-rule, they have no relevance in Independent India. Is not necessary to state how the said publication is relevant or not, on reading the word ‘baseless’ the claims made cannot be refused by merely stating ‘rejected’ as Government does in disposing of petitions and appeals, etc. 10. Mainly because of the scantily prepared counter affidavit which does not even disclose whether a particular enactment relied upon by the petitioner is existing or non-existing, it led to this Court, to find out for itself, as to what the correct position, relating to the claim that the demand made it barred by limitation. 11. Mr. Dalavai was emphatic that, in the light of contravention of Ss. 4 and 11 of Act 6 of 1867, the quit rent already collected requires to be refunded forthwith. He has specifically relied upon S. 4, because the Collector had not ever informed him as to why without a pre-demand, the collection was lawful. S. 11 imposed a bar of any demand of arrears, beyond six years. 4 and 11 of Act 6 of 1867, the quit rent already collected requires to be refunded forthwith. He has specifically relied upon S. 4, because the Collector had not ever informed him as to why without a pre-demand, the collection was lawful. S. 11 imposed a bar of any demand of arrears, beyond six years. Therefore, when a plea for refund of tax pending disposal of a writ petition had been thus advanced, and granted, which would act as a precedent in other matters, this Court had to find out for itself, as to what is the correct position. The latest edition of Tamil Nadu Code published in 1974, does not contain this Act. The previous edition of 1958 contains this Act. The fore, the Government Advocate was asked to find out from the Law Department, as to what is actual position. In the meanwhile, the High Court office had put up T.N. Act 16 of 1967 to show that by S. 5 therein Act 6 of 1867 had been repealed. This was confirmed by the Law Department through the Government Advocate. These are adverted to, for enlightening those who are in charge of defending Governments interests in litigations, in court, as to how far and how negligently its defence is put forth. When so many grounds are taken by referring to Sections in a repealed Act, is it not expected of a Government, to inform the court, when called upon to state its defence, that the Act relied upon by petitioner in a public interest litigation, is no longer in force? In miscellaneous petitions of this nature, invariably, the practice of a court is to straight way dictate the order, on what materials are forthcoming, daring the course of the hearing, and not to defer passing of orders. But for this Court taking the precaution to find out as to what could be the actual position it would have naturally resulted, by relying upon Ss. 4 and 11 of Act 6 of 1867, in ordering refund of the amount collected because any demand beyond the period of six years, would be illegal under S. 11 of the Act. But for this Court taking the precaution to find out as to what could be the actual position it would have naturally resulted, by relying upon Ss. 4 and 11 of Act 6 of 1867, in ordering refund of the amount collected because any demand beyond the period of six years, would be illegal under S. 11 of the Act. Only after an order is passed, analysis and study starts, and then appeals are preferred claiming as if an error had been committed in the order, and in this process, considerable judicial time gets lost, over the same matter being heard in stages. All these are due to the failure of properly putting forth the defence on behalf of State at the appropriate time, and by not filing apposite, precise, and meticulously prepared counter-affidavits, with enclosure of copies of proceedings, which are relied upon by the Government and which are not within the knowledge of the petitioner. It is necessary to note that counter affidavits invariably are reproductions of paradise remarks prepared by subordinate staff, who cannot deal with all the points effectively. This practice of three decades cannot go on without inducing studiousness in preparation of Governments defence, by understanding the points raised in the petitions. Mr. Dalavai wants the Court to pass an order on the date of hearing. But it had to be deferred, mainly because of the scantily prepared counter-affidavit of the Government, and which acted as a pointer that it would not be safe for the Court to rest on such a counter affidavit and proceed to pass orders. This is not a solitary occasion, but, in spite of more than once, this Court expressing its displeasure, about relevant materials not being made available on time, and which puts the Court to considerable stress and strain, the present endeavour is once again made, to prevent recurrence of such situations in future. A Court is always zealous, and strains its every nerve, to see that its orders are correct, so that public may not suffer in the application and enforcement of its decisions. When Government fails to put before Court the correct position, the ultimate sufferers are the general public. 12. A Court is always zealous, and strains its every nerve, to see that its orders are correct, so that public may not suffer in the application and enforcement of its decisions. When Government fails to put before Court the correct position, the ultimate sufferers are the general public. 12. Now that it is disclosed that T.N. Act 6 of 1867 had been repealed in 1967, the demand made is not baited by limitation, because it is claimed, by relying upon S. 1 of T.N. Act 12 of 1951. 13. The next contention is that the rates of quit rent having been fixed under R. 25-B of G.O. Nos. 486(R). dated 19th December, 1908, the present demand at rates quite different from it is illegal. This claim is not at all touched upon in the counter affidavit, nor any records or orders or circulars produced to show as to how and when these rates have been revised. The only defence put forth is, to club it with the all comprehensive claim, that it is ‘baseless’. As the demand made is at variance from thos e rates, the collection of quit rents, as now made, would not be justified. 14. The other point is that the receipts issued are receipts conceived for collecting urban land tax, and therefore, the proper procedure is not followed. Several receipts are produced in court which show that, attempts had been made to score out the caption ‘urban land’ and substitute by the words ‘quit rent’. In other portions of the receipts do suitable correction to that effect are carried out. All the relevant particulars are not referred to in the receipts produced before Court. This shows the indiff erent manner in which the concerned authorities have chosen to recover arrears which have remained unenforced since 1971. It is unthinkable that after thirteen years, all of a sudden, without a demand notice issued indicating as to how and in what manner the liability had accrued, forcible collections could be made at door-step. Strangely, Collector had come forward with a claim that officials, who collect the dues would disclose the arrears, details, etc., while demanding the amounts, i.e., orally it will be communicated. It is common knowledge as to what these tax collectors do, and how far they are equipped to communicate particulars and that too for 13 years when recoveries are made during their visits to houses. It is common knowledge as to what these tax collectors do, and how far they are equipped to communicate particulars and that too for 13 years when recoveries are made during their visits to houses. Mr. Dalavai asserts that no particulars were ever furnished, except the demand for the lump sum to be paid. This is believable. Hence, when the receipts issued themselves do not disclose any of the relevant particulars it cannot be said that proper disclosure of materials is being made when arrears of quit rent is being collected. Under S. 3, Collector of Madras is to determine the rate of assessment to be levied under S. 1 of the Act, but no reference is made in the counter affidavit as to what are the rates he had prescribed, and as to how far it is quite different from what petitioner had claimed in para 25 of the affidavit, and whether the amounts collected, as shown in the receipts produced by the petitioner, are correct or not. When no material is placed before this Court to prove the correct prevailing rates, the demand is illegal. 15. Yet another point taken is that no guidelines exist for the Collector, to fix the rents. As to whether any such rate exists as demand, itself having not been placed before this Court, and no reference having been made to any of the guidelines ever issued to him, this Court considers that, in the light of these infirmities, existing and arbitrariness made out, the proper relief to be extended to the citizens of Madras is to restrain the respondents from collecting any quit rent, till the disposal of the writ petition. 16. Though on these points this petition could be ordered, necessity having arisen to read through every provision of T.N. Act 12 of 1851, extracting S. 16 therein has become irresistible. It reads as follows:— “The ground rents payable (to the Goverment) from lands in Madras are revenue within the meaning of the Act of the Parliament, 21 Geo III, cap. Though on these points this petition could be ordered, necessity having arisen to read through every provision of T.N. Act 12 of 1851, extracting S. 16 therein has become irresistible. It reads as follows:— “The ground rents payable (to the Goverment) from lands in Madras are revenue within the meaning of the Act of the Parliament, 21 Geo III, cap. 707; and the Supreme Court of Judicature established by Royal Charter at Madras has not any civil jurisdication concerning the said ground rents or concerning anything ordered or done in the assessment or collection thereof.” Though every citizen would react reading this those who extricated this country from British Empire are still alive, and they would regret deeply that such provisions are still allowed to exist in this country. Amendments have been made more than once after Independence to this Act and the latest was in 1967 and yet, this sort of provision is allowed to exist. 17. Hence, the petition is ordered as prayed for.