ORDER: Aggrieved by the assessment of property tax for four different buildings owned by the petitioner in assessment Nos.10244, 10245, 10246 and 10247 from the half year 1993-94 (II) onwards and the consequential distraint warrant dated 29.7.1994 due to the non-payment of the said property tax by the petitioner, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the connected records of the respondent in his Distraint Warrant dated 29.7.1994 pursuant to his reference Ne.Mu.Ka. No.8689/91/A1, dated 20.2.1993 and to quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 2. Mr.S.Thankaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the impugned Distraint Warrant on two grounds, viz., (i) As per Sec.82(1) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, there should not be four different assessments for four separate buildings owned by the same owner, namely, the petitioner; and (ii) No notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned assessment order. 3.Per contra, Mr.P.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel for the respondent, contends that as per Sec.82 of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act, 1920, four independent assessments are permissible in law and that the respondent had served notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned assessment order, which is referred to in the writ petition itself. 4. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 5. Sec.82(1) of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act, 1920 reads as follows: “82. Method of assessment of property: (1) Every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premises.” A bare reading of Sec.82(1) of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act, 1920 in my considered opinion, does not prohibit independent assessment for four different buildings owned by the same person. Sec.82(1) of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act, 1920, only requires that every building and the adjacent sites and premises owned by the same person should be assessed together. But if the buildings and sites are owned by different persons, such buildings, sites or premises should be assessed independently. But Sec.82(1) of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act, 1920, does not deal with the situation where four buildings are owned by the same person, nor it bars an independent assessment to four different buildings, even though they are owned by the same person. But Sec.82(1) of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act, 1920, does not deal with the situation where four buildings are owned by the same person, nor it bars an independent assessment to four different buildings, even though they are owned by the same person. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had erred and had violated Sec.82(1) of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act for having assessed four independent buildings of the petitioner by separate assessments, viz., assessment Nos.10244, 10245, 10246 and 10247. 6. With regard to the other contention, since the petitioner had already been served with a notice before the impugned assessment and the consequent distraint warrant, which are enclosed in the typed set itself, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not been given any notice. In the result, both the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner fail and the writ petition is dismissed for want of merits and legal contention. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No.20991 of 1994 is also dismissed.