Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner Company is the owner of certain lands in Mannur Village which have been assessed for Urban land tax, vide ULT.Case Nos.7A TO 7E of 1401, dated 23. 1993. The net tax amount levied is Rs.12,778/-. The petitioner had filed a revision before the first respondent challenging the order of assessment and the demand made by the third respondent. By an order, dated 112. 2000, the first respondent had rejected the revision. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .3. It has been stated that the petitioner Company is engaged in the manufacture of agricultural equipments, like, power tillers, Reapers, transplanters, ploughs, Disc Harrowers, Threshers and Trailers, which are used in the cultivation of crops, like rice, wheat etc. The petitioner Company was allotted nearly 5 acres of land by SIDCO. After constructing the buildings required for the Industrial use, the petitioner Company is using a major portion of the land for agricultural purposes. The equipments manufactured by the petitioner Company are tested on the said land. Therefore, it was represented by the petitioner Company that the portion of the lands used for agricultural purpose cannot be taxed. While hearing the revision, the report of the competent authority, under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been relied on. From the said report, it was clear that more than 2 acres of the lands in question were being used for various agricultural operations. A major portion of the lands are shown in the village accounts as agricultural lands and therefore, the petitioner had filed the adangal extracts to show that the lands in question was categorized as wetland. However, the revision had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner Company had claimed exemption under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978. However, the first respondent had failed to see that the Government order granting the exemption, under the said Act, has referred to the agricultural operations carried on by the petitioner. Therefore, the reason stated by the first respondent to reject the revision is erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. However, the first respondent had failed to see that the Government order granting the exemption, under the said Act, has referred to the agricultural operations carried on by the petitioner. Therefore, the reason stated by the first respondent to reject the revision is erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had produced the adangal extracts from fasali 1401 to 1408. The entries contained in the adangal extracts would prove the existence of the various trees and the buildings. Therefore, the respondents should have excluded the agricultural lands before levying the tax. Further, the second respondent had assessed the different survey numbers in the lands in question by a single order, instead of assessing them separately. Under Section 29(A) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, an extent of two grounds, in each survey number, are exempted from the levy of tax. The second respondent has taken the entire extent in each of the survey numbers and has levied the tax by a single order of assessment. Even though the infirmity had been pointed out, the first respondent had not taken it into consideration while passing the impugned order. A separate demand notice ought to have been issued for each fasali as prescribed, under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. Instead the village administrative officer had issued a single consolidated demand, dated 22. 2000, contrary to Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. .5. It has also been stated that the second respondent had allowed the concession of 25% to the petitioner Company, which is a small scale industrial unit, instead of the concession of 50% that should have been allowed, as per the Government instructions. However, the petitioner Company had paid a sum of Rs.38,000/-towards the urban land tax, after the order of assessment had been passed by the second respondent. In such circumstances, the order of assessment passed by the second respondent requires necessary revision. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner Company had filed its return in Form 33B, under Section 7D of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, as amended in 1991, for the urban lands owned by the said Company. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner Company had filed its return in Form 33B, under Section 7D of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, as amended in 1991, for the urban lands owned by the said Company. A notice in Form 2D of the Amended Act, 1991, had been issued to the petitioner Company, on 12. 1993, requesting the Company to produce the documents and to file the objections, if any, for the proposed levy of Urban Land Tax. The Companys Technical Director, in his letter, dated 22. 1993, had raised no objections to the levying of the tax. After perusing the copies of the sale deeds furnished by the petitioner Company, it was ascertained that the lands in question, measuring an extent of 2.55 acres in plot No.32A of Ambattur Industrial Estate had been allotted by SIDCO. For the development of the industrial activities, one of the conditions imposed by SIDCO is that the purchaser shall use the property only for the purpose of running an industry and for other connected activities. It was stated that the land cannot be used for any other purpose. Thus, it is clear that the land in question falls under the definition of urban land, as defined under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 and thus, it become liable for the levy of tax under the said Act. 7. It has been further stated that a concession of 25% has been allotted as per the rules, since the petitioner Company was holding a permanent small scale industry certificate. At the time of the enquiry, there was no protest from the petitioner Company for the levy of tax in respect of the land in its possession. 8. The petitioner Company had filed the necessary returns required under Section 10(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. After a due enquiry, the tax had been levied, on 12. 1980. After the receipt of the assessment orders under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, as amended by the amended Act, 1975, the petitioner Company had not raised any objection nor did they file any appeal against the said orders. After a due enquiry, the tax had been levied, on 12. 1980. After the receipt of the assessment orders under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, as amended by the amended Act, 1975, the petitioner Company had not raised any objection nor did they file any appeal against the said orders. Further, the assessment orders were also issued for the lands, as per the amended act, in the year, 1991 and the said orders had been duly served on the petitioner Company, on 9. 1993. The petitioner Company had not claimed any kind of exemption, either at the time of the enquiry or after the receipt of the order, by way of filing a revision petition, till 312. 1999. Only after a lapse of 6 years, the petitioner Company had filed the revision petition, on 1. 2006, before the first respondent, challenging the assessment orders passed, on 23. 1993. After hearing the petitioner Company and on examining the records, the first respondent had passed an order, dated 112. 2000, dismissing the revision petition, as it was devoid of merits. 9. It has also been stated that the petitioner Company is engaged in the manufacture of agricultural equipments and it has reserved a portion of the land to test the manufactured equipments. The crops said to have been grown by the petitioner Company is only for the testing of the industrial equipments and it is not for the purpose of production of agricultural products. Therefore, no agricultural activity, in the normal sense, had been carried on in the lands in question. Further, the entire land had been treated as urban land and it was exempted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. The second respondent has rightly assessed the said land for the payment of the Urban Land Tax. The petitioner Company, which is a small scale industrial unit, is entitled to a concession of 25% only. 50% concession is applicable only to the urban land owners, who use the lands for personal residential purpose. In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Company is liable to be dismissed. 10. The petitioner Company, which is a small scale industrial unit, is entitled to a concession of 25% only. 50% concession is applicable only to the urban land owners, who use the lands for personal residential purpose. In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Company is liable to be dismissed. 10. On analyzing the averments made on behalf of the petitioner Company as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that the second respondent has passed the assessment order, dated 23. 1993, assessing the lands in question, belonging to the petitioner Company, for the payment of urban land tax. In the description of the property, in the village accounts, the lands are classified as wet lands. The lands had been allotted to the petitioner Company by SIDCO for running a small scale industrial unit. The petitioner Company has been manufacturing agricultural equipments in a portion of the said lands. However, in certain portions of the lands Mango and Coconut trees had been grown. From the adangal extracts relating to the lands in question, from fasali 1401 to 1408, it is clear that the said trees had been grown in a large portion of the lands. However, neither the second respondent assessing authority nor the first respondent revisional authority had taken into consideration the said fact before passing the assessment order, levying the assessment tax on the petitioner Company. The first respondent had mainly relied on the fact that the petitioner Company had obtained an exemption, under Section 12(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, claiming that the lands were industrial lands and that they were used for the said purpose. However, the first respondent had not considered the fact that in certain portions of the lands belonging to the petitioner Company agricultural crops had been grown, as seen from the adangal extracts filed by the petitioner Company. In fact, both the second respondent, who is the assessing authority, and the first respondent, who is the authority empowered to revise the order ought to have considered the claims made by the petitioner that a major portion of the lands in question have been put to agricultural use by growing of trees, like, Mango and coconut. It has also been claimed by the petitioner Company that in certain portions of the land paddy cultivation was being done. It has also been claimed by the petitioner Company that in certain portions of the land paddy cultivation was being done. In such circumstances, the second respondent, vide ULT.Case No.7A TO 7E of 1401, dated 23. 1993, as confirmed by the order of the first respondent, dated 112. 2000, vide Rc.232/2000 C3 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for the re-assessment of the lands in question, belonging to the petitioner Company, with regard to the levying of urban land tax, taking into account the usage of the lands for agricultural purposes. The petitioner Company is directed to place all the relevant records before the second respondent assessing authority to enable the said authority to reassess the lands in question, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner Company is expected to render full cooperation in the enquiry to be conducted by the said assessing authority, with regard to the re-assessment of the lands for the levying of urban land tax under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. On receipt of such records, the second respondent is to complete the process and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.