Judgment :- Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in File No.ER 8/27180/99 bearing Assessment NO. 109001 dated 31-10-2000, quash the same and direct the respondent to make fresh assessment in accordance with law to the property in question. 2. Judgment :- Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in File No.ER 8/27180/99 bearing Assessment NO. 109001 dated 31-10-2000, quash the same and direct the respondent to make fresh assessment in accordance with law to the property in question. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioners would submit that they are the owners of the land and building situate at No.1, Nallamuthu Pillai New Street, Keelathurai, Madurai, within the limits of the respondent Corporation; that originally the tax for the said building was assessed by the respondent Corporation at Rs.1573.60; that when the respondent Corporation sought to enhance the same to Rs.9441.60 with effects from 1.4.1984, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.1255 of 1985 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Madurai seeking a declaration that the assessment is illegal and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondent from enforcing the said assessment; that the suit was decreed after contest on 3-4-1986 and the said decree has become final; that again when by notice dated 9-1-1991 the respondent sought to enhance the property tax to Rs.18,120.40 with effects from 1-4-1989, the said assessment was questioned by the petitioners in O.S.No.285 of 1991 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Madurai; that the said suit was contested by the respondent and a decree was passed on 30-06-1992 declaring that the notice dated 9-1-1991 was illegal, invalid and nonest in law and the consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondent from enforcing said assessment was also granted; that when the respondent Corporation served another notice dated 30-06-1993 fixing the property tax at Rs.10,252/- with effects from 1.4.1984, the petitioners filed another suit in O.S.No.1236 of 1994 seeking a declaration that the said notice dated 30.06.1993 is illegal and invalid and the said suit was pending; that the petitioners have filed I.A.No.937 of 1994 in the said suit to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from demanding and collecting the tax as assessed in the said notice; that ad-interim injunction was granted on 20-09-1994 and the same was made absolute on 19-12-1996; that as per the order dated 20-10-1994, the petitioners paid the old property tax at the rate of Rs.1573.60 till the first half year of 1999-2000; that on 11-10-1999, another 'Final Attachment Notice' was served on the petitioners for the arrears of tax to the tune of Rs.15,000/- from the first half year 1992-93 to the first half year 1999-2000 for which the petitioners sent a telegram dated 14-10-1999 informing that the notice was in violation of the orders of injunction granted by the Court in I.A.No.937/1994 in O.S.No.1236 of 1994 followed by a registered letter by speed post dated 15-10-1999. 3. The petitioners would further submit that on 29.10.1999 they were served with a notice stating that there were arrears of property tax to the tune of Rs.1,54,356/- from first half year 1993-94 to second half year 1999-2000 further disclosing that on failure, the property would be attached at any day after 2-11-1999; that there was no assessment made after 30-06-1993; that aggrieved the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.1000/1999 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Madurai seeking a declaration that the final attachment notice dated 29.10.1999 was illegal, arbitrary, against law and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondent from recovering the dues; that in the interim injunction petition in I.A.No.1017/1999 notice was ordered initially and on enquiry, the District Munsif, though held that a prima facie case has been made out, but however, imposed a onerous condition that the petitioners should pay Rs.1 lakh to the respondent on or before 22-11-1999 in order to have the benefit of injunction; that having aggrieved of the said order, the petitioners filed C.R.P.No.3424 of 1990 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court by Order dated 22-11-1999 set aside the portion of the order of the learned District Munsif imposing the condition further directing the District Munsif to pass orders on merits after hearing both parties; that the District Munsif who heard the above application for injunction, by Order dated 10-1-2000 while granting injunction, directed the petitioners to pay half of the amount demanded i.e., Rs.77,178/- on or before 24-01-2000 posting the application on 25-01-2000 against which the petitioners preferred a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.177 of 2000 on the file of this Court; that this Court set aside the demand dated 29-10-1999, giving liberty to the respondent to assess the property tax afresh for the period from 1993-94 onwards and pass orders with opportunity to the petitioners. 4. 4. The further case of the petitioners is that after disposal of the above said CRP, the respondent gave a notice to the petitioners for making fresh assessment of the property tax for the building in question on the basis of assumed daily collection in the Cinema Theatre; that the petitioners have raised their objection on ground that this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have repeatedly pointed out that the property tax should be assessed only on the basis of the method prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for calculation of fair rent; that Section 120 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') also specifically provides that the annual value of the building shall form the basis of assessment of property tax; that Section 121 of the Act defines the annual value of the building further laying down the procedures while so, the respondent, without reference to any of the above provisions, has assessed the property tax on the basis of daily collection which is against the fundamental statutory provisions; that the respondent in its proceedings No.Ki.Mu.Va.8/27180/99 dated Nil had over ruled their objections on flimsy grounds; that as per the assessment order served on the petitioners, the respondent has fixed the property tax payable at Rs.18,555/- per half year with effects from 1-4-1993 to 31.03.1998 and at Rs.28,707/- per half year with effects from 1-10-1998; that the assessment of tax at Rs.10,252/- was challenged in the suit and the same is pending and hence the respondent cannot take that as a basis; that the reasoning of the respondent that the petitioners have assessed other theatres on the basis of daily collection cannot be a basis for supporting the illegal assessment. On such grounds, the petitioners have come forward to file this Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in File No.ER 8/27180/99 bearing Assessment NO. 109001 dated 31-10-2000, quash the same and direct the respondent to make fresh assessment in accordance with law to the property in question. 5. No counter has been filed on the part of the respondent Corporation. However,the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation would argue the case of the respondent on instructions. 6. 109001 dated 31-10-2000, quash the same and direct the respondent to make fresh assessment in accordance with law to the property in question. 5. No counter has been filed on the part of the respondent Corporation. However,the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation would argue the case of the respondent on instructions. 6. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, besides tracing the facts as it has been pleaded in the writ petition, would further point out that wherever the buildings are located, the assessment should be based on rental value and the said assessment of the respondent is opposed to Section 121 of the Act and would cite the following Judgments: i)THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. THE GUNTUR TOWN RATEPAYER'S ASSOCIATION.ETC.,(1971 II M.L.J.7) wherein it has been held: "Section 82(2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act makes provisions for the fixation of annual value according to the rent at which lands and buildings may reasonably be expected to be let from month to month or from year to year less the specified deduction. The test essentially is what rent the premises can lawfully fetch if let out to a hypothetical tenant. The municipality is thus not free to assess any arbitrary annual value and has to look to and is bound by the fair or the standard rent which would be payable for a particular premises under the Rent Control Act in force. In this respect no distinction can be made between buildings the fair rent of which has been actually fixed under the Rent Control Act and those in respect of which no such rent has been fixed." ii) THE MADURAI MUNICIPALITY, THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER, D. GNANAOLIVU Vs. R. KAMAKSHISUNDARAM CHETTIAR AND ANOTHER reported in (1955) II M.L.J,369 wherein it has been held: "Though the fair rent fixed for building under the Madras Buildings(Lease and Rent Control)Act 1949 may and ordinarily should be taken into consideration by the Municipal Authorities in computing the annual value under Section 82 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, they are not bound to take such fair rent as necessarily the rent for which the building may reasonably be expected to be let within the meaning of that Section. The determination of fair rent under the Rent Control Act is to a certain extent represent the rent at which the premises could reasonably be expected to be let during the particular year of assessment to property tax" In the above judgment, their Lordships would refer to "Ryde on"Rating"(8th edition) wherein the principles laid down in POPLAR ASSESSEMENT COMMITTEE V. ROBERTS are summarised thus: "This decision involves the position (i)that 'the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for an hereditament' may be something more than can be recovered from any tenant under a general Act applying to that hereditament, and may include something which, if any tenant has paid,, he is entitled to recover; and(2) that in ascertaining what that rent is, no regard may be had to the landlord (whether actual or hypothetical), or to any restrictions which may letter him as a party to the bargain by which that rent is fixed" iii)S.RAMASWAMY Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF MADRAS reported in (1977) II M.L.J 457) wherein it has been held: "Wherever buildings are subject to rent control restrictions, the rental value has to be fixed with reference to the fair rent, if any, fixed under the statutory provisions for the building and if no fair rent has been fixed by the Rent Controller the municipal authorities have to apply the provisions of the Rent Control Act and determine the fair rent for the building before assessing the property to tax" 7. Further citing Section 168 of the Act, the learned counsel would point out that escape assessment cannot go beyond three years. On such argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners is praying to the grant of relief sought for in this writ petition. 8. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation would submit that the petitioners are till today only paying the tax of Rs.1573.60 that was assessed prior to 1984; that Section 22 of the said Act empowers the Council to frame rules; that the statutory position is clear; that Council has passed a resolution assigning Section 121 of the said Act. The learned counsel would point out that it is false to allege on the part of the petitioners that in spite of assessing the property on the building value, the respondent has assessed the property based on only the income. The learned counsel would read out Section 121(2) of the Act which is specific to the effect that "the annual value of lands and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year,less a deduction, in the case of buildings, of ten per cent of the portion of such annual rent which is attributable to the buildings alone, apart from their sites and the adjacent lands occupied as an appurtenance thereto" The learned counsel would also point out that in Rent Control Act the land value is taken on the basis of the guideline value and that they are only following the market value as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions. On such arguments, the learned counsel for the Corporation would pray to dismiss the writ petition with costs. 9. In consideration of the pleadings of the writ petition, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent Municipal Corporation as well, what comes to be known is that the petitioners are the owners of the `New Delux Theatre' which is a cinema theatre comprised of the land and building and it is the subject matter for assessment of property tax by the respondent Municipal Corporation; that the said theatre had been originally assessed prior to 1.4.1984 by the respondent at Rs.1,573.60 and the same was sought to be enhanced to Rs.9,441.60 with effects from 1.4.1984. The admitted case of the petitioners is that not only for this enhancement, but for every subsequent enhancement, whenever notices were issued for the determination of the assessment and for collection, the petitioners were in the habit of filing civil suits in the Court of District Munsif having territorial jurisdiction over the suit property. The admitted case of the petitioners is that not only for this enhancement, but for every subsequent enhancement, whenever notices were issued for the determination of the assessment and for collection, the petitioners were in the habit of filing civil suits in the Court of District Munsif having territorial jurisdiction over the suit property. Thus, suits in O.S.No.1255 of 1985, O.S.No.285 of 1991, O.S.No.1236 of 1991 and O.S.No.1000 of 1999 have been filed mostly for declaration that the notices of enhancement were null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from collecting the enhanced rate of property tax, thus in the last 18 years, the petitioners have been successful in filing the above suits and getting the decrees, barring the last one in the Court of District Munsif, Madurai with no appeals preferred on any of those decrees said to have been obtained by the petitioners as against the respondent Corporation. As offshoots, Interlocutory Applications and CRPs. have also been filed many in number as it had been extracted while dealing with the case of the writ petitioner from the pleadings of the same. Needless to mention that without the connivance of the Corporation officials who are in charge of the assessment and collection and the legal cell, the petitioners would not have been successful in their attempts. The petitioners have been thus successfully able to ward off the payment of the property tax at the actual enhanced rate in the same manner all other cinema theatres have been assessed by the respondent Corporation and the petitioners alone, for their cinema theatre, building and the land are still effecting the payment of tax of Rs.1,573.60 in the last 18 years. Ultimately, testifying the validity of an order passed, which is an assessment notice covering the period 1998, the petitioners have come forward to file the above writ petition on such grounds extracted supra and praying to quash the same and direct the respondent to make fresh assessment of the property tax in accordance with law. 10. It is relevant to point out that this property viz. `New Deluxe Theatre' is located at No.1, Nallamuthu Pillai New Street, Keelathurai, Madurai within the limits of the respondent Corporation and the respondent Corporation for the purpose of tax assessment classified the theatre portion as `Part-A' based on ticket rate, number of seats etc. 10. It is relevant to point out that this property viz. `New Deluxe Theatre' is located at No.1, Nallamuthu Pillai New Street, Keelathurai, Madurai within the limits of the respondent Corporation and the respondent Corporation for the purpose of tax assessment classified the theatre portion as `Part-A' based on ticket rate, number of seats etc. and the commercial portion i.e. non-theatre portion as `Part-B', and assessed the said properties for the first half of the year 1998 as per Schedule II Part II of the Act at Rs.18,555/= and for the second half year a sum of Rs.28,707/= as property tax. 11. As extracted earlier, the petitioners have been in the habit of resorting to file suits in the civil Court whenever there had been notices issued for the assessment of the property tax and the Court of District Munsif also has freely entertained such suits filed on tax matters relating to the respondent Corporation and passing interim orders freely and ultimately decrees and the highlight of the said drama is that not a single appeal had been preferred by the Corporation as against any of the orders or decrees passed by the Court of District Munsif, Madurai in the suits and applications filed many in number as aforeseen. It could be seen that even certain orders passed by the Court of District Munsif, the petitioner had defied to comply with and filed revisions as a result of which in the last nearly two decades, the petitioner has been paying only a sum of Rs.1,573.60 as the property tax for the theatre, building and the lands adjoining the building. 12. It is not only the enhancement of tax whenever it had been levied, but also the interim orders passed by the District Munsif ultimately to pay a sum of Rs.one lakh as the tax on or before 22.11.1999 which had not been complied with by the petitioners, but only a C.R.P. would be filed, in which the order of the District Munsif dated 22.11.1999 would be set aside directing the District Munsif to pass orders afresh. The District Munsif while granting an order of injunction again had directed the petitioners to pay half of the amount demanded i.e., Rs.77,178/- on or before 24.01.2000 and the petitioners would not also comply with this condition, but would only prefer another C.R.P. and this Court would ultimately set aside the very demand notice dated 29.10.1999 giving liberty to the respondent Corporation to assess the property tax afresh for the period from 1993-94 onwards and pass orders. Even without complying with the assessment made by the Corporation as per the directions of the High court, the petitioners have come forward to file the above writ petition on grounds extracted supra. 13. Be that as it may. Now the point for consideration in the above writ petition is 'whether the assessment made by the respondent Corporation in the orders impugned both dated 31.10.2000 are sustainable in law or whether they become liable to be quashed directing the respondent to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law again?' 14. On the part of the petitioners, two legal points would be raised during arguments. The first one being that the assessment should be based on rental value and the assessment of the respondent Corporation is opposed to section 121 of the Act. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner would cite three decided cases respectively reported in (1971) II M.L.J 7, (1955) II M.L.J 369 and (1977) II MLJ 457 (extracted supra). 15. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner would cite three decided cases respectively reported in (1971) II M.L.J 7, (1955) II M.L.J 369 and (1977) II MLJ 457 (extracted supra). 15. The first Judgment cited above deals with Section 82(2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act which makes provisions of fixation of Annual Value according to the rent at which lands and buildings may reasonably be expected to be let from month to month or from year to year less the specified deduction and it has been held therein that the test essentially is what rent the premises can lawfully fetch if let out to a hypothetical tenant and that the Municipalities are thus not free to assess any arbitrary annual value." The second Judgment would also deals with the same Section 82(2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act and it would be held therein that 'the rent fixed for building under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1949 may be ordinarily taken into consideration by the Municipal Authorities in computing the annual value under Section 82 of the Madras District Municipalities Act and they are not bound to take such fair rent as necessarily.' In the third Judgment it would be held that 'the rental value has to be fixed with reference to the fair rent, if any, fixed under the statutory provisions for the building and if no fair rent has been fixed by the Rent Controller, the municipal authorities have to apply the provisions of the Rent Control Act and determine the fair rent for the building before assessing the property to tax.' 16. All the above three judgments put together have taken either the provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act or the determination of the fair rent by the Rent Controller under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1949 as the standard parameters for fixation of the rental value of the building for assessment both of which are not applicable to the case of the respondent Corporation, which is bound by a separate enactment and therefore, these Judgements cited are of no use for the purpose of the case in hand. 17. The point that the learned counsel for the petitioners would insist is that under Section 168 of the Act, the escape assessment cannot go beyond three years. 17. The point that the learned counsel for the petitioners would insist is that under Section 168 of the Act, the escape assessment cannot go beyond three years. Section 168 of the Act reads thus: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder, if for any reason any person liable to pay any of the taxes or fees leviable under this Chapter has escaped assessment in any half-year or year has been assessed in any half-year or year at a rate lower than the rate at which he is assessable or, in the case of property tax has not been duly assessed in any half-year consequent in the building or land concerned having escaped proper determination of its annual value, the commissioner may at any time within three years from the date of which such person should have been assessed, serve on such person a notice assessing him to the tax or fee due and demanding payment thereof within fifteen days from the date of such service: and the provisions of this Act and the rule made thereunder shall so far as may be apply as if the assessment was made in the half-year or year to which the tax or fee relates." 18. So far as this section is concerned, the learned counsel could not bring the non-payment of the tax on the part of the petitioners whenever demanded by the respondent Corporation under the escaped assessment. The escaped assessment cannot at all be used in the context of the case, since they are different. Section 168 of the Act says that 'if for any reason any person liable to pay taxes has escaped assessment, the Commissioner may at any time within three years from the date of which such person should have been assessed, serve a notice assessing him to tax for payment within 15 days from the date of such service.' In the case in hand, there is absolutely no allegation of the petitioners escaping assessment, since they have always been resorting to the Court and getting stay or injunction and thus stalling the proceedings. As a result of which, it is only a matter kept pending on judicial orders and under no stretch of imagination, it could be construed an escaped assessment. As a result of which, it is only a matter kept pending on judicial orders and under no stretch of imagination, it could be construed an escaped assessment. Absolutely no slackness has been shown in assessment on the part of the respondent Corporation and therefore, this is not a case falling under Section 168 of the Act. 19. So far as the legal point involved in this case is concerned, it has become paramount on the part of this Court to decide 'whether the Civil Courts (the Court of District Munsif, Madurai in the case in hand) have got jurisdiction in matters of Municipal Corporations and such other bodies assessing, enhancing and collecting the taxes and under what circumstances the Civil Courts could entertain suits and decide the question of assessment, enhancement and collection of property taxes', which, if broadly assessed depends on various aspects such as whether the particular Municipal body has for itself an Act which is comprehensive in nature covering the subject of the assessment, enhancement, collection of the property tax etc. or inconsistent regarding such aspects and whether it is incumbent on the part of either the assessees or Corporation to resort to the Civil Court's jurisdiction testifying the validity of any act perpetrated on the part of either of the parties to the dispute in the circumstances of the particular case. If the Act is comprehensive, the statutory reliefs given by the Act should be followed in which case, there is no question of resorting to alternative remedy outside the scope of the Act. 20. So far as the case in hand is concerned, it is the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act which is directly concerned with the subject. Though the Act contemplates no explicit bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, no doubt the bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court or Tribunals is implied therein. Section 169 of the Act refers to Schedule II, which contemplates how the tax is to be assessed under Part I. Part V speaks of the taxation appeal remedy to the Taxation Appellate Tribunal. A further appeal also lies to the District Court with limitations prescribed therein. 21. So far as the legal propositions pertaining to alternative remedy are concerned, it has been held that alternative remedy, excepting on the following grounds, is not necessary. A further appeal also lies to the District Court with limitations prescribed therein. 21. So far as the legal propositions pertaining to alternative remedy are concerned, it has been held that alternative remedy, excepting on the following grounds, is not necessary. They are: (i) If the issue relates to the question of jurisdiction, (ii)for violation of the high principles of natural justice, and (iii) where perversity writs large i.e. no case, no evidence etc. Unless a case falls under all or any of the above three categories, no alternative remedy is available in law. 22. At this juncture, to ascertain the question of civil courts exercising jurisdiction in such matters which are covered by statutes, it is relevant to study the subject in the light of the propositions held by the upper forums of law in the recent judgments delivered by them including the Honourable Apex Court. 23. The first case wherein it is held that in matters of taxation, a suit cannot be filed is one delivered in SIVABUSHANAM AMMAL vs. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF MADRAS reported in 1995-1-CTC 598. In this judgment, a learned single Judge of this Court, as he then was, had, in no uncertain terms, held in the context of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 as follows: "The jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain sits challenging revision of property tax has been impliedly ousted in view of provisions of the City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 to file appeals before the Taxation Appellate Committee for such relief." 24. In the above case, it is the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act which was relevant for consideration and in the case in hand, it is the Madurai Municipal Corporation Act which provides for such reliefs, needless to mention that the above proposition squarely and aptly applies to the case in hand. 25. The second case throwing light on the subject is one delivered in TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, VELLORE vs. A.KRISHNAN reported in 1997-1-CTC 116 wherein the workers of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reached a settlement with the management under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 25. The second case throwing light on the subject is one delivered in TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, VELLORE vs. A.KRISHNAN reported in 1997-1-CTC 116 wherein the workers of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reached a settlement with the management under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Claiming that the procedure adopted by the Board for implementation of settlement is illegal, the workers have resorted to civil proceeding by means of a suit and the learned single judge of this Court while deciding the second appeal, has held: "Rights conferred under settlement or denial of such rights flowing from settlement and implementation of settlement had origin under the Industrial Disputes Act - Any dispute relating to such matters can be agitated before the forum constituted under the I.D.Act and not before ordinary civil Courts - Suit is not maintainable for the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff." 26. The third judgment relevant for consideration in the case in hand is one delivered by the Honourable Apex Court in SRIKANT KASHINATH JITURI AND OTHERS vs. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELGAUM reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 288 wherein the full bench of the Honourable Apex Court assessing the correctness of the assessment of tax, apart from its constitutionality which are for the decision of the authorities, held that a civi suit does not lie and the orders of the authorities are declared to be final. Citing a landmark judgment delivered by His Lordship Justice Hidayatullah, C.J., in DHULABHAI vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ((1968) 3 SCR : AIR 1969 SC 78 ), wherein the principles relating to jurisdiction of civil court in the case of facts and orders taken under special enactment had been well settled in full consideration of several Indian and English cases which have been uniformly followed by the Honourable Apex Court in various later decisions, the last of which being SHIV KUMAR CHADHA vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (1993) 3 SCC 161 , the Honourable Apex Court would ultimately hold: "Applying the above principles, it must be held that the present suit, on the allegations contained in the plaint itself - let alone the findings of the Court - is not maintainable in a civil Court. None of the grounds on which an assessment made under the Karnataka Act can be challenged in a civil Court is even alleged in the plaint, as pointed out hereinbefore. None of the grounds on which an assessment made under the Karnataka Act can be challenged in a civil Court is even alleged in the plaint, as pointed out hereinbefore. In other words, none of the grounds indicated in Dhulabhai ( AIR 1969 SC 78 ), upon which such an assessment can be questioned is alleged in the plaint. All that is complained of is that the enhancement is excessive. That by itself is not enough. Similarly, the allegation that enhancement is arbitrary or unreasonable is per se not sufficient to override the express statutory bar. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the said suit is not maintainable in civil Court." 27. Assessing the case in hand in the light of all the above legal propositions held by this Court and the Honourable Apex Court as well, so far as the petitioners embarking upon filing civil suit every time that the assessment of property tax is made by the Madurai Municipal Corporation so far as the properties belonging to the petitioners cinema theatre and the lands annexed therewith, in view of the fact that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act is comprehensive in all aspects providing not only the Rules and procedures regarding the assessment of the tax, enhancement of the same but also providing the appeal before the Taxation Appellate Tribunal and further appeal before the District Court besides prescribing the limitations, it is absolutely not incumbent either on the part of the petitioners to have resorted to file civil suits or on the part of the Court of District Munsif, Madurai to have entertained the same since in all respects it has no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit particularly since the jurisdiction is seized by the statute viz. Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act. Needless to mention that all the suits filed by the petitioners testifying the validity of the enhancement, right from the assessment year 1984 and all the subsequent assessments and enhancement are nothing but illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, all orders and judgments passed not only by the Court of District Munsif, Madurai concerned, as mentioned in the writ petition, but also the further orders passed in all other proceedings by such Courts including the ciivl revision petitions filed before this Court, become only liable to be declared null and void and the same are declared accordingly. 28. Consequently, all orders and judgments passed not only by the Court of District Munsif, Madurai concerned, as mentioned in the writ petition, but also the further orders passed in all other proceedings by such Courts including the ciivl revision petitions filed before this Court, become only liable to be declared null and void and the same are declared accordingly. 28. For all the discussions held supra, there is absolutely, no justification for the petitioners to claim the relief sought for especially in view of the fact that the respondent Corporation have assessed the petitioners' property, a Cinema Theatre, in the manner required by law and this Court is not able to see any illegality or legal infirmity or inconsistency as crept into the demand orders both dated 31.10.2000, which are impugned herein, so as to warrant interference of this Court into the same and in all probabilities, the writ petition only becomes liable to be dismissed. In result, i) the above writ petition is without merit and the same is dismissed as such; (ii) The respondent/Madurai City Municipal Corporation is at liberty to collect the taxes from the petitioners to the original enhancement from 1984 onwards till date and collect the entire arrears of tax in the manner known to law. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.30324 of 2000 is also dismissed.