ORDER Swamikkannu, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ and in particular for the issue of a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of respondents 1 and 2 regarding the petitioner's disputed land bearing Town Survey No. 69 in Block No. 36, bearing Old Door No. 18, New Door No. 31, First Main Road, Gandhinagar, Adayar, Madras and for quashing the order of the 1st respondent, the Urban Land Tax Tribunal, II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dated 25.9.1981 in U.L.T.A.No. 738 of 1876. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that in the absence of any document to prove sale of land in the relevant locality i.e., First Main Road, Gandhinagar, Adayar, the finding in the impugned judgment based on no concrete instant of sale of land in the said area and doubling the value fixed by the same 1st respondent on 16.8.1973 in U.L.T.A.No. 265 of 1981, is highly unjustified, arbitrary, opposed to law and principles of equity under Section 5 of the Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 as amended by Act 49 of 1975 and that the first respondent failed to note that when as recent as 1973, the same Tribunal thought it fit to reduce and fix the value of the land of the petitioner at Rs. 6,000 per ground, there is no further need for the petitioner to produce any document to prove any sale of land in the year 1971, in respect of any property situated near his disputed land. 3. The point for consideration is whether the relief prayed for by the petitioner can be granted. 4. Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 deals with the determination of market value by the Assistant Commissioner, Section 10(2)(e) of the Act reads as follows: Where the owner has failed to attend or produce evidence in pursuance of the notice under Clause (a), the Assistant Commissioner shall, on the basis of the enquiry made under Clause (a) by order in writing, determine the market value of the urban land and the amount of urban land tax payable in respect of such urban land. 5. In this regard, the file concerned is produced by Lokapriya, the learned Government Advocate for taxes. 5. In this regard, the file concerned is produced by Lokapriya, the learned Government Advocate for taxes. In the file at page 7, it is staged by the petitioner herein before the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Saidapet that he did not have the particulars of the land and that this land was originally assessed in C.No. 64 dated 18.2.1970 against which the Tribunal in its No. 265/71 dated 16.8.1973 had passed some orders revising the value by fixing it at Rs. 6,000 per ground as on 1.7.1963. It is also stated by the petitioner that he did not have any other particulars. As regards the value of this land as on 1.7.1971, the statement of the petitioner is that he does not think that there is any change in the value fixed by the U.L.T. Tribunal. 6. It is on this statement given by the petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax had fixed the market value by following G.O.Ms.No. 2625 Revenue Department, dated 27.12.1976. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents Lokapriya relies on the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent. He draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 3 of the Counter affidavit. Para, 3 of the counter affidavit reads thus: The petitioner herein seeks relief of the Honourable Court for a writ of centiorari calling for the records of the first respondent. The Urban Land Tax Tribunal, Madras has in its Judgment dated 15.9.1981 in U.L.TA.No. 738/76 fixed the market value of the urban land comprised in Town Survey No. 69 of Bk.36 of Kootur Village at Rs. 12,000 per ground. The extent of the Urban Land owned by the petitioner in the above said town Survey No. 69 is of area 5 grounds and 1449 sq.feet., corresponding to New Door No. 31, First Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adayar, Madras-20. This urban land was assessed to urban land tax by the then Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Saidapet under the Amendment Act 49 of 1975 with effect from fasli 1385 (1.7.1975) fixing the market value of the case lands at Rs. 18,000 per ground in case No. XXXVI/69/ K.T.R./75 dated 14.7.1976. The tax payable is Rs. 1,002.60 per fasli from fasli 1385. The first respondent has determined the market value at Rs. 12,000 per ground and has set aside the order of the second respondent. 18,000 per ground in case No. XXXVI/69/ K.T.R./75 dated 14.7.1976. The tax payable is Rs. 1,002.60 per fasli from fasli 1385. The first respondent has determined the market value at Rs. 12,000 per ground and has set aside the order of the second respondent. The second respondent has issued revised orders on 30.6.1980 adopting the market value of Rs. 12,000 per ground. Against this order the first respondent, the petitioner has now filed this present writ petition. In pursuance of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 2625 of Revenue Department dated 27.12.1976, the market value fixed at Rs. 6,000 per ground on 1.7.1963 has been doubled and assessment orders were passed in C.No. XXXVI/69/ K.T.R./75 dated 30.6.1980. This Court is of the opinion that when there is a clear provision in the Act as to how the market value has to be determined, that should be followed faithfully and the provisions of the Government Order should not be preferred in a matter like this. What is more, the present Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 2625 of Revenue Department dated 27.12.1976 has got no retrospective effect and the value as on 1.7.1963 has been doubled as per the said Government Order and the value of the land had been determined as Rs. 12,000. This is not the procedure contemplated by Section 10(2)(c) of the Act. In the instant case, the petitioner has relied on the order of the Tribunal which had fixed the value at Rs. 6,000 as on 1.7.1963 and the authorities doubled the same as per the above said Government Order. This procedure adopted by the authorities in the opinion of this Court is not correct because apart from the Government Order not being applicable to the date of ascertainment of the value of the land in question, it does not specifically incorporate in it a provision saying that it has got retrospective effect. It was on April, 12, 1976 that the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Saidapet had obtained the statement of the petitioner herein. The Government order is of the date 27th December, 1976. Therefore the principle embedded therein with respect to determination of market value cannot be upheld. The procedure that is required to be followed, under the circumstances, is the one prescribed under Section 10(2)(c) of the Act. The Government order is of the date 27th December, 1976. Therefore the principle embedded therein with respect to determination of market value cannot be upheld. The procedure that is required to be followed, under the circumstances, is the one prescribed under Section 10(2)(c) of the Act. The records do not disclose that any attempt had been made on the part of the Urban Land Tax Authorities to ascertain the value of the adjacent land or the lands in the very same locality, viz., in Gandhinagar, area. The authorities had only doubled the value that had been once fixed about three years before the present determination of the value. This Court is definitely of the view that the market value of the land has to be estimated by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser, and that this value could be measured by a consideration of the prices that have obtained in the past for similar lands and with reference to location of the land, nearness to a main road, accessibility to road, frontage and depending upon the size and shape of the lands and other special considerations. 8. It is only on the basis of some sign boards hanging in the premises in question, namely Chakramakal Clinic and Chakramakal International School, that the authorities considered that the building was used for commercial purposes also and refused to give 50% urban land tax concession. The petitioner herein has stated in the reply affidavit that no clinic or school is run in the premises and that the premises is wholly and entirely used by him for his personal use and occupation. 9. There is no evidence in the entire record produced by the department to-day in Court to show that there is any clinic or school run in the premises in question. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to the exemption if any on the ground that he is not using the land in question entirely for his own occupation. Further there is no discussion as to how the market value had been fixed initially at Rs. 18,000 and how it was subsequently reduced to Rs. 12,000. This court is definitely of the view that the Tribunal had also erred in adopting the Government Order stated above and in increasing the amount from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. Further there is no discussion as to how the market value had been fixed initially at Rs. 18,000 and how it was subsequently reduced to Rs. 12,000. This court is definitely of the view that the Tribunal had also erred in adopting the Government Order stated above and in increasing the amount from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 12,000. In the instant case, there is a failure on the part of the authorities to determine the market value as per the procedure required under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. What is more, it has not been shown that any attempt was made by the authorities concerned to approach the Registration Department to ascertain what was the market value of land in Gandhinagar area at the relevant point of time. The authorities went wrong in stating that the property under assessment is abutting Lattice Bridge Road, Adayar, Madras-20. On the other hand, it is far away from the said Lattice Bridge Road and the Eros Cinema Theatre on the said Lattice Bridge Road. Under these circumstances, by merely saying that the land in question is near the Lattice Bridge, the authorities cannot substantiate their fixation, at Rs. 12,000. Therefore the impugned order has to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Saidapet, Madras who is the second respondent herein who will take this matter into his file and dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of the records, in the light of the observation made above and in accordance with law. No costs.