Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai, First Respondent, bearing Procg. No.24191/99-D2, dated 10.11.2000 and direct the Respondents to treat the assessment with respect to the lands situate in S.Nos.1440/1, 1440/2, 1441/2, 1444/2, 1445, 1446/1 and 1446/2B, Block No.36, Ward No.1, Puliakulam Village, Coimbatore as a continuation of the earlier assessment and reduce the Urban Land Tax in proportion to the reduced land holding. 2. Facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows: The Petitioner-Company originally owned an extent of 137 grounds 1517 sq.ft of land in Race Course, Coimbatore. The details of which are given below: Sl.No. T.S.No. Extent 1440/1 10 grounds 2380 sq.ft. 2 1440/2 12 grounds 2128 sq.ft. 16 grounds 0281 sq.ft. 1444/1 43 grounds 0472 sq.ft. 1444/2 23 grounds 2094 sq.ft. 2 grounds 2344 sq.ft. 1446/1 2 grounds 1298 sq.ft. 3 1441 4 5 6 1445 7 8 1446/2B 25 grounds 0123 sq.ft Total 137 grounds 1517 sq.ft 3. The Petitioner has further submitted that the above lands were originally assessed to Urban Land Tax (in short “ULT”). In 1993, it was enhanced to Rs.97,300/- by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Collectorate Complex, Coimbatore, the 3rd Respondent, by his order, dated 11.11.1993. He adopted a market value of Rs.1,38,240/- per ground for the purpose of arriving at Tax and the amount of tax payable by the Petitioner was arrived at Rs.3,10,064/-. However, as per the Rules, the revision of tax was restricted to five times the earlier tax paid and consequently, the Urban Land Tax payable was fixed at Rs.97,300/- from Fasli 1401. Aggrieved by the same, an Appeal in U.L.T. A.No.36/94 was filed before the learned Principal Sub-Judge (Coimbatore Tribunal), challenging the market value adopted by the Third Respondent as well as the tax levied. When the Appeal was pending on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge Coimbatore, the 3rd Respondent, by order, dated 28.8.1997, revised the tax payable by the Petitioner and fixed the same at Rs.1,17,565/-, instead of Rs.97,300/-. This Revision was carried out by the 3rd Respondent on the ground that there was discrepancy in the earlier order, dated 11.11.1993, pertaining to the actual tax paid prior to Fasli 1401. 4. This Revision was carried out by the 3rd Respondent on the ground that there was discrepancy in the earlier order, dated 11.11.1993, pertaining to the actual tax paid prior to Fasli 1401. 4. The Petitioner has further submitted that the land in respect of which, Urban Land Tax was levied, was promoted into a residential complex known as “Raheja Enclave” consisting of six blocks. Out of the six blocks, three blocks (now four blocks) each consisting of a ground and four floors, were completed and sold out to various purchasers. The three completed blocks (Blocks “A”, “B” and “C”) have been constructed over and above an extent of 23 grounds and 421 sq.ft. in the above mentioned property. In view of the sale in favour of various purchasers, the Company filed Form No.35 with the Third Respondent, giving him information about the sale of extent of 23 grounds and 421 sq.ft and consequently, sought for a proportionate reduction of Urban Land Tax for the aforesaid extent. They also sought for exemption of levy of Urban Land Tax with reference to 10 grounds 890 sq.ft, which has been gifted to the Corporation and an extent of 44 grounds 1680 sq.ft. earmarked for common amenities, like road, Lawn, etc. In all, the Petitioner-Company sought for reduction of Urban Land Tax in view of the above developments. 5. The Petitioner has further submitted that the said Exemption application in form No.35 was considered and accepted by the 3rd Respondent. Though a major extent of land held by the Petitioner-Company has been considerably reduced from 137 grounds 1517 sq.ft. to 59 grounds 0926 sq.ft., the 3rd Respondent has proceeded to further revise the tax to Rs.1,06,498/-. It is grievance of the Petitioner that the 3rd Respondent, instead of proportionately reducing the tax, has approached the assessment erroneously and fixed the tax at Rs.1,06,498/-as if it is a new assessment, thereby, taking away the benefit available under the Rules and that the enhancement of tax cannot be more than 5 times the original tax levied. Aggrieved by the order of the 3rd Respondent, dated 27.1.1998, the Petitioner-Company has preferred a Revision to the 1st Respondent on 23.2.1998 and the 1st Respondent, vide communication, dated 6.5.1998, directed the Company to approach him, after getting the Appeal in ULTA No.36/96, pending before the Principal Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, disposed of. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the 3rd Respondent, dated 27.1.1998, the Petitioner-Company has preferred a Revision to the 1st Respondent on 23.2.1998 and the 1st Respondent, vide communication, dated 6.5.1998, directed the Company to approach him, after getting the Appeal in ULTA No.36/96, pending before the Principal Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, disposed of. 6. The Petitioner has further submitted that since disposal of the Appeal was delayed, they were constrained to file W.P.No.12772/98 on the file of this Court for a mandamus, directing the 3rd Respondent to forward all the records, pertaining to his order, dated 11.11.1993, together with all the connected records relating to the case register, pertaining to the above said Survey Numbers. Appeal in ULTA 36/94 pending on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Coimbatore was transferred to the District Revenue Officer, Appellate Authority, Urban Land Tax, Collectorate Complex, Coimbatore, 2nd Respondent, being a Tribunal, who subsequently dismissed the same. Thereafter, as per the orders of the 1st Respondent, dated 6.5.1998, the Revision Petition was renewed. 7. It was the contention of the Petitioner before the 1st Respondent-Revisional Authority that though land holdings had been considerably reduced from 137 Grounds 1517 sq.ft. to 59 grounds 0926 sq.ft., the reduction in rate of tax was not proportionate to the land holdings. Besides, it was also the contention that the tax was levied on the basis that the assessment in respect of the properties as a new assessment and therefore, the levy was totally erroneous. It was further contended that the 2nd Respondent had taken away the benefits accrued to them and as per the Rules, any enhancement of tax on the existing assessment should not be made more than 5 times from the original tax. However, the 1st Respondent, without appreciating the above said contention, has dismissed the Revision Petition on 10.11.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 8. Assailing the correctness of the order, Ms. P.T. Asha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Revisional Authority has failed to consider that the Petitioner’s land has been subjected to Urban Land Tax right from the commencement of the Act and that the land holdings has been considerably reduced. According to her, the Revisional Authority has failed to consider that when there is a substantial reduction in the land holding, there should be corresponding reduction in the Urban Land Tax. According to her, the Revisional Authority has failed to consider that when there is a substantial reduction in the land holding, there should be corresponding reduction in the Urban Land Tax. According to her, when 137 grounds 1517 sq.ft, were assessed to tax at Rs.1,17,565/-, the levy of Rs.1,06,498/- to an extent of 59 grounds 0926 sq.ft., is disproportionate and therefore she submitted that both the Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities have failed to advert to the contentions in proper perspective. 9. Referring to Section 13 of the Urban Land Tax Act, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that once the market value with respect to the land, is determined, the same shall remain in force for such period, as the Government may specify and when the market value of the land holdings of the Petitioner-Company has been fixed at Rs.1,38,240/-, of the authorities, while considering the Application under Form-35, as a new assessment, have erroneously proceeded to enhance the market value to a sum Rs.15,04,972.70 and levied tax. It is her further contention that the First Respondent has overlooked the fact by observing that the assessment as a new assessment, the Petitioner-Company has been deprived of all the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue Department, dated 20.05.1992, which states that the Urban Land Tax in respect of lands already assessed would be enhanced only to five times that of the existing tax. 10. Referring to Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, which states that tax is leviable on ‘each urban land’, as defined under Section 2(6) of the Act, which means, the urban land comprised in a Survey Number or a Sub-Division Number, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the sale of land in one Survey number would not affect the benefit available in the other Survey Number. For the above said reasons, she prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Coimbatore Zone, Third Respondent herein has filed a detailed Counter Affidavit. Reiterating the same, Mr. R. Tholkappian, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) submitted that initially the Petitioner-Company owned an extent of about 137 grounds 1517 sq.ft. in T.S.Nos.1420/1, 1440/2, 1441, 1444/1, 1444/2, 1445, 1446/1, 1446/2B of Block 36 Ward 1, Coimbatore town. Reiterating the same, Mr. R. Tholkappian, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) submitted that initially the Petitioner-Company owned an extent of about 137 grounds 1517 sq.ft. in T.S.Nos.1420/1, 1440/2, 1441, 1444/1, 1444/2, 1445, 1446/1, 1446/2B of Block 36 Ward 1, Coimbatore town. Urban land tax was levied based on the market value as on 1.7.1971 and was revised, thereafter adopting the market value as on 1.7.1981 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Amendment Act, 1991 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1992). 12. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the Third Respondent adopted the market value as Rs.1,38,240/-per ground and that tax was arrived at Rs.3,10,064/-. Urban Land Tax levied under 1975 Act for the case lands was Rs.19,459.95 per Fasli. Urban Land Tax was levied under the Amended Act 1991 and restricted to 5 times of ULT levied under 1975 Act (Rs. 19459.95 x 5), as per G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue, dated 20.5.1982, which worked out a sum of Rs.97,300/-per Fasli and it was levied vide order, dated 11.11.1993, eventhough the Market value was fixed as on 1.7.1981 at Rs.1,38,240/-per ground. Against the assessment order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 20 of the Act, during 1994 before the learned Principal Sub-Judge Coimbatore in ULTA No.36 of 1994, disputing the market value adopted and prayed for reduction of tax. 13. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents further submitted that the Third Respondent, at the time of restriction of tax, had inadvertently noted the tax as Rs.19,459.95 instead of the correct amount of Rs.23,513/- levied under the Amended Act 1975, and therefore, revised assessment order was passed by the 3rd Respondent for Fasli 1401 by adopting the amount of Rs.23,513/- and as such, the urban land tax of Rs.1,17,565/- (being 5 times of Rs.23,513/-) was levied in his order dated 28.8.1997. Pursuant to the order dated 8.3.1999 in W.P.No.1409/99, directing the 2nd Respondent to dispose of the Appeal, the 2nd Respondent dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner-Company on 5.10.1999. 14. Pursuant to the order dated 8.3.1999 in W.P.No.1409/99, directing the 2nd Respondent to dispose of the Appeal, the 2nd Respondent dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner-Company on 5.10.1999. 14. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that pending disposal of the Appeal, the Petitioner-Company filed an Application in Form 35 under section 19(5) of the Act on 31.5.1996 before the 3rd Respondent and requested for re-assessment order, since they had sold out some of their lands to different persons and accordingly, after deducting the extent of land sold out and the extent of land gifted to Coimbatore Corporation, revised orders were passed by the 3rd Respondent for the remaining extent held by them, vide proceedings in ULC No.34/WI/B36 dated 27.1.1998 from Fasli 1406 onwards, by levying tax of Rs.1,06,498/-per Fasli, adopting the same market value of Rs.1,38,240/- per ground. 15. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the Petitioner-Company filed a Revision Petition before the 1st Respondent, during 1998 contending inter alia that fixing and levying of tax, as new assessment on the lands held by them is erroneous, instead of deducting the proportionate tax for the land sold by them and prayed that tax ought to have been levied on the reduced pro-rata basis. At this juncture, the 1st Respondent, in his Letter, dated 6.5.1998, has instructed the Petitioner-Company to renew their Revision Application, after the disposal of the Appeal. After disposal of the Appeal, the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the 1st Respondent on 1.11.1999, reiterating the same grounds. When the matter was heard, the Petitioner accepted the market value of Rs.1,38,240/- per ground. 16. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that after substantial alienation and after furnishing the information under Section 19 in Form 35, the Urban land Unit can no longer be construed and treated as a continuous unit of the previous assessment, prior to 1.7.1991 and thus they become ineligible for restriction of the tax to five times of the previous assessment. 17. Rebutting the contention of the Petitioner, learned Government Advocate further submitted that while adopting the market value as on 1.7.1981 in the place of the market value as on 1.7.1971, it was found that severe hardship would be caused by adopting several times of the tax and therefore, the Government taking a lenient view issued order G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue dated 20.5.1992, that the tax shall be worked out to 5 times of the tax already assessed. Based upon this, the 3rd Respondent had already passed orders from Fasli 1401 onwards, by restricting the tax amount by 5 times of the tax already levied. Since the extent held by the Petitioner-Company continued to be the same as in the previous assessment, this concession was applied to them. 18. Referring to Section 19(5)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, learned Government Advocate further submitted that whenever there is change in the aggregate extent of urban land held by any owner in any urban area as a result of any transfer effected by inheritance, sale, purchase, etc., and once a land owner files an Application under Section 19(5)(b) of the Act in Form 35, any assessment made thereon would be an assessment or re-assessment for the subsequent faslies only and the averment of the Petitioner-Company is contrary to the statute. He therefore, submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that it should be treated as continuous assessment of the earlier assessment and that levy of tax should be only 5 times at each and every time is not proper. 19. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the concession granted in G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue, dated 20.5.1992 cannot be applied, since there is no previous assessment for the revised holdings. He therefore submitted that the relief sought for by the Petitioner-Company to reduce the tax proportionately by applying G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue dated 20.5.1992 and restrict the tax to five times of the previous tax proportionately is not tenable, since the assessment made to the land holdings is a fresh assessment. 20. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the Petition under Section 19 (5)(b) of the Act in Form-35 has to be treated only as a new assessment, since the Petitioner-Company has alienated a substantial portion of their lands and furnished a new information. According to him, the assessment of land is made only once and thereafter, any change in the holdings would he taken only as a modification. In the case on hand, revised orders have already been made by the Assistant Commissioner under the Amended Act 1991 and the Urban Land Tax levied has been restricted to five times of the tax already levied under the Amended Act, 1975. In the case on hand, revised orders have already been made by the Assistant Commissioner under the Amended Act 1991 and the Urban Land Tax levied has been restricted to five times of the tax already levied under the Amended Act, 1975. Since there is no provision in G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue, dated 20.5.1992 for applying the restriction of tax to 5 times of the previous assessment, to the assessment in respect of the revised orders passed for the subsequent fasli years, at each and every time, there is no logic in contending that even after change in ownership, etc., there should be continuity of assessment and in such circumstances, the order of the First Respondent, cannot be found fault with. 21. According to the learned Government Advocate, as per G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue dated 20.5.1992, the criteria for restricting the tax under the Amended Act, 1991, upto 5 times of the previous tax, levied under Amended Act, 1975 is that if the tax fixed for an assessee under the Amended Act 1975, on the basis of the previous market value as on 1.7.1971, exceeds the tax to be fixed under the amended Act, 1991 on the basis of market value as on 1.7.1981, then the concession of 5 times restriction would be applied only to those cases with a view to reduce the tax burden of that assessee. On the contrary, the said G.O., cannot be applied to all future cases, which would defeat the very purpose of the assessment. 22. As regards the contention that when the total holding of 137 grounds 1517 sq.ft. was reduced to 59 grounds 0926 sq.ft., due to sale and transfer, the ULT was not reduced proportionately, learned Government Advocate submitted that as per the original assessment order, dated 11.11.93, the ULT actually levied was at Rs.3,10,064/- without 5 times restriction and only after adopting the five times restriction, the net tax payable was arrived at Rs.1,17,565/-. He, therefore, submitted that the contention to the contra has to be rejected. 23. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the allegation that the market value of the lands had been enhanced to a higher amount of Rs.15,04,972.70 in the order, dated 27.1.1998, while the same was at Rs.1,38,240/- vide dated 11.11.1993 is baseless. He, therefore, submitted that the contention to the contra has to be rejected. 23. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the allegation that the market value of the lands had been enhanced to a higher amount of Rs.15,04,972.70 in the order, dated 27.1.1998, while the same was at Rs.1,38,240/- vide dated 11.11.1993 is baseless. He further submitted that in both the orders, dated 11.11.1993 and 27.01.1998, respectively the market value has been determined at Rs.15,04,972.70 for the land in S.No.1440/2, measuring an extent of 10 Grounds 2128 sq.ft and assessed to ULT. In sum and substance, he submitted that the assessment is a new assessment and therefore, the tax levied is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that there is no illegality in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 24. Before adverting to the facts of this case, a cursory look at the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, is necessary. Section 2(6) of the Act defines “each urban land” and it means, the urban land comprised in a survey number or a sub-division number. As per Section 2-B of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (5) of Section 2 and Section 2-A, in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, for the purpose of determining the amount of urban land tax under this Act for the fasli year commencing from the 1st day of July 1991 and for the subsequent fasli years, ‘date of the commencement of this Act’ in relation to the areas in which this Act is in force. Chapter III deals with the determination of market value and assessment of urban land tax. Section 5 deals with levy of urban land tax and it reads as follows: “Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, there shall be levied and collected for every Fasli year commencing from the date of the commencement of this Act, a tax on each urban land from the owner of such urban land at the rate specified in this First Schedule.” 25. Section 5-D of the Act deals with special provisions regarding market value and it reads as follows: Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Section 5-D of the Act deals with special provisions regarding market value and it reads as follows: Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the urban land tax under this Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax (Amendment) Act, 1991, shall be levied in the areas in which this Act is in force (including the scheduled areas) with effect on and from the 1st day of July 1991. (2) For the purpose of determining the amount of urban land tax under sub-section (1) in respect of the areas specified in that sub-section, the market value as on the 1st day of July 1981, shall be the basis. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and the other provisions of the Act, for determining the amount of the urban land tax under sub-section (1), the provisions of this Act shall as far as may be, apply as they applied to the determination of the amount of urban land tax before 1st day of July 1991.” 26. Section 6 deals with market value of urban land and it is extracted hereunder: “For the purpose of this Act, the market value of any urban land shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Assistant Commissioner, or the Tribunal, as the case may be, such urban land would have fetched or fetch, if sold in the open market on the date of the commencement of this Act.” 27. Section 7-D of the Act deals with the owner of urban land to submit fresh returns and it reads as follows: “7-D. Owner of Urban land to submit fresh return- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 7, 7-A, 7-B and 7-C, every owner of urban land in the areas in which this Act is in force (including the scheduled areas) and liable to pay urban land tax, shall, within a period of one month from the date of the publication of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax (Amendment) Act, 1991, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette or within such further time as the Government may, by notification, specify, furnish to the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, a return in respect of each urban land containing the following particulars, namely: (a) name of the owner of the urban land; (b) the extent of the urban land in the urban area; (c) the name of the division or ward and of the street, survey number and sub-division number of the urban land and other particulars of such urban land; (d) the amount which in the opinion of the owner is the market value of the urban land; and the provisions of this Act, shall, as far as may be, apply in respect of such return as they apply in respect of the return referred to in Section 7.” 28. Section 10 deals with determination of the market value by the Assistant Commissioner and it reads as follows: “(1) Where a return is furnished under Section 7, the Assistant Commissioner shall examine the return and make such enquiry as he deems fit. If the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the particulars mentioned therein are correct and complete, he shall, 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. (2)(a) Where on examination of the return and after the enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner is not satisfied that the particulars mentioned therein are correct and complete, he shall serve a notice on the owner either to attend in person or at his office on a date to be specified in the notice or to produce or cause to be produced on that date any evidence on which the owner may rely in support of his return. (b) The Assistant Commissioner, after hearing such evidence as the owner may produce in pursuance of the notice under clause (a) and such other evidence as the Assistant Commissioner may require on any specified points shall, 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. (c) 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.” 29. Section 13 deals with market value to remain in force for specified period and it reads as follows: “The market value determined under this Act, with reference to any specified date shall remain in force for such period as the Government may, from time to time, specify in this behalf and such period shall commence from such specified date.” 30. Section 19 deals with obligation of transferor and transferee to give notice of transfer and it is extracted hereunder: “(1) Whenever the title of any person primarily liable to the payment of urban land tax on any urban land is transferred, the person whose title is transferred and the person to whom the same is transferred shall, within three months after the execution of the instrument of transfer or after its registration, if it be registered, or after the transfer is effected, if no instrument be executed, give notice of such transfer to the Urban Land Tax Officer. (2) In the event of the death of any person primarily liable as aforesaid, the person to whom the title of the deceased shall be transferred as heir or otherwise, shall give notice of such transfer to the Urban Land Tax Officer within one year from the death of the deceased. (3) The notice to be given under this Section shall be in such form as may be prescribed and the transferee or the person to whom the title passes, as the case may be, shall, if so required, be bound to produce before the Urban Land Tax Officer, any document evidencing such transfer or succession. (3) The notice to be given under this Section shall be in such form as may be prescribed and the transferee or the person to whom the title passes, as the case may be, shall, if so required, be bound to produce before the Urban Land Tax Officer, any document evidencing such transfer or succession. (4) Every person who makes a transfer as aforesaid without giving such notice to the Urban Land Tax Officer shall (in addition to any other liability which he may incur through such neglect), continue liable for the payment of the urban land tax assessed on the urban land transferred, until he gives notice or until the transfer shall have been recorded in the revenue registers, but nothing in this Section shall be held to affect the liability of the transferee for the payment of the said tax. (5) Whenever there is change in the aggregate extent of urban land held by any owner in any urban area as a result of any transfer effected by inheritance, sale, purchase, gift, exchange, surrender, settlement or by any other manner whatsoever or as a result of partition- (a) such owner shall furnish to the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction a return in respect of such urban land containing such particulars, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, and the provisions of this Act shall, as far as may be, apply to such return as if it were a return required to be furnished under Section 7; and (b) the Assistant Commissioner shall proceed to assess or re-assess such urban land for subsequent fasli years, after following such procedure as may be prescribed, and the provisions of this Act, shall, as far as may be, apply to such assessment or reassessment.” 31. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue Department, dated 20.05.1992, have issued certain guidelines in implementation of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966-(Amendment) Act, 1991 (Act No.1 of 1992 and it reads as follows: “As per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Amendment Act, 1991 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1992) the levy of Urban Land Tax has been extended to 21 special Grade and Selection Grade Municipalities and 2 Townships of Mettur and Kodaikanal with effect from 01.07.1991. Under Section 5-D(2) of the Principal Act as amended by Tamil Nadu 1 of 1992 for the purpose of determining the amount of Urban Land Tax in respect of the areas in which the Act is already in force, the market value as on the 1st day of July 1981 shall be the basis. 2. Before the introduction of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act no.1 of 1992, the market value of the Urban Land as on 1st July 1971 in the areas where the Act was already in force was the basis for levy of urban land tax. It has now been felt by the Government that in some cases in the urban agglomeration areas of Madras, Madurai, Coimbatore, Salem, Trichy, the Urban Land Tax payable under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1992, adopting the market value as on 01.07.1981 may be several times the tax now being assessed adopting the market value as on 01.07.1981 and that this would cause severe hardship to the urban land owners and that this hardship should be mitigated to some extent. After a careful consideration, the Government decide and direct that in all such cases where the revised urban land tax levied based on the market value as on 01.07.1981 exceeds 5 times that of the tax already levied based on the market value as on 01.07.1971, then the revised Urban Land Tax shall be limited to five times that of the existing tax now levied on the urban land on the market value as on 1st July 1971. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms is requested to take action accordingly. 3. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department, vide its U.O.No.35507/Rev/92-1, dated 15.05.1992.” 32. Pleading disclose that though the Petitioner has contended that the market value of the property has been determined at Rs.15,04,972.70, for the purpose of assessment of tax, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the market value has been determined at Rs.1,38,240/- per ground in both the orders, dated 11.11.1993 and 27.01.1998, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Coimbatore, Third Respondent, which was sought to be revised. A sum of Rs.15,04,972.70 is the total market value for the land in S.No.1440/2, measuring an extent of 10 Grounds 2128 sq.ft assessed to ULT. A sum of Rs.15,04,972.70 is the total market value for the land in S.No.1440/2, measuring an extent of 10 Grounds 2128 sq.ft assessed to ULT. In fact, the Revisional Authority, while rejecting the Revision, has recorded as follows: “The party accepted the market value of Rs.1,38,240/- per ground and now the Advocate has not given anything to the contrary.” 33. On the facts of this case, it has to be considered as to whether the market value has been fixed properly. The principles in determining the market value are to be with reference to comparable sales and it is to reduce to the minimum the element of speculation. While doing so the following factors are important in comparable sales: (1) within a reasonable time limit of the relevant date, (2) should be a bona fide transaction; and (3) should be the same land or adjacent land or possess similar advantages. 34. As per the provisions of Section 2(6) urban land means the extent of land situate in each Survey Number. T.R. Karunakaran Bros. v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Trichy (Division Bench), 1986 (1) MLJ 152 : 1985 Writ LR 482. The unit survey land for the purposes of assessment is a Survey Number and in Vauhini Studios v. Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, 1979 (92) LW 719, it has been held that this does not mean that the average market value of the Survey Number has to be taken for the purposes of assessment. Therefore, the contentions of the Petitioner that the market value has not been properly arrived at cannot be accepted. 35. Reading of G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue Department, dated 20.5.1992, shows that the Government, having regard to the increase in the market value of the property in urban agglomeration areas of Madras, Madurai, Coimbatore, Salem, Trichy, felt that adopting the market value as on 01.07.1981 and levying the tax, may cause severe hardship to the urban land owners and to mitigate the hardship to some extent and accordingly, directed that in all such cases, where the revised urban land tax levied based on the market value as on 01.07.1981, exceeds 5 times that of the tax that now levied on the urban land on the market value as on 01.07.1971. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate that this special concession under the above said Government, is not applicable for the fresh assessment cases, after the amendment Act, 1991, i.e. in respect of which, assessments were already made. The concession would be applicable only if the holdings remain the same. 36. As per Section 19(5) of the Act, whenever there is change in the aggregate extent of urban land held by any owner in any urban area, as a result of any transfer effected by inheritance, sale, purchase, etc., (a) such owner shall furnish to the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction a return in respect of such urban land containing such particulars, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, and the provisions of this Act shall, as far as may be, apply to such return as if it were a return required to be furnished under Section 7; and (b) the Assistant Commissioner shall proceed to assess or re-assess such urban land for subsequent fasli years, after following such procedure as may be prescribed, and the provisions of this Act, shall, as far as may be, apply to such assessment or re-assessment. 37. In the case on hand, materials disclose that while adopting the market value as on 1.7.1981 in the place of the market value as on 1.7.1971, it was found that severe hardship would be caused by adopting several times of the tax and therefore, by applying G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue, dated 20.5.1992, the Third Respondent, had already passed orders from fasli 1401 onwards, by restricting the tax amount by 5 times of the tax already levied. The Petitioner has filed an Application before the Second Respondent, which was also dismissed. Since the extent of land held by the Petitioner-Company continued to be same as in the previous assessment, the concession granted in G.O.Ms. no.578, Revenue, dated 20.5.1992 was applied to the lands and while doing so, the tax was fixed at Rs.19,459.95 instead of Rs.23,513/-, which was subsequently rectified. After the sale of lands, the holdings have been reduced from 137 grounds 1517 sq.ft. to 59 grounds 0926 sq.ft., and accordingly the tax levied has been reduced to Rs.1,06,498/-. Thereafter, the Petitioner-Company had sold away certain lands to others and filed an Application under Form-35, i.e., Application for revised assessment. 38. After the sale of lands, the holdings have been reduced from 137 grounds 1517 sq.ft. to 59 grounds 0926 sq.ft., and accordingly the tax levied has been reduced to Rs.1,06,498/-. Thereafter, the Petitioner-Company had sold away certain lands to others and filed an Application under Form-35, i.e., Application for revised assessment. 38. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that without five times restriction, the tax leviable was Rs.3,10,064/-on 137 grounds 1517 sq.ft and after applying G.O.Ms.No.578, re-assessment for the entire of land, held by the Petitioner-Company, it was fixed at Rs.1,17,565/-. Since the Petitioner-Company has alienated a substantial portion of their lands and furnished fresh information under Section 19(5)(b), the same cannot be treated as previous assessment. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate that once the assessment of land is made and revised under the amended Act, 1991 and the Urban Land Tax levied has been restricted to five times of the tax already levied under amended Act, an Application under Section 19(5) (b), furnishing a fresh information has to be treated as a new assessment for the subsequent faslies. It cannot be treated as a continuous assessment of the earlier assessment, as there is no provision in G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue, dated 20.5.1992, for applying the restriction of tax to 5 times of the previous assessment, to the assessment in respect of the revised orders passed for the subsequent fasli years, each and every time. Otherwise, whenever there is change in the aggregate extent of urban land held by any owner in any urban area, as a result of any transfer effected by inheritance, sale, purchase, gift, exchange, surrender, settlement or by any other manner whatsoever or as a result of partition, then the revised assessment of tax would be restricted to only five times of the previous tax, levied under the Act, 1975 and that it would be a continuous process for every transfer. Such process is not contemplated in the Government Order. 39. As per G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue dated 20.5.1992, the criteria for restricting the tax under the Amended Act, 1991, to 5 times of the previous tax levied under Amended Act, 1975, is the tax on the holdings held by an assessee, as per the Amendment Act, 1991. Such process is not contemplated in the Government Order. 39. As per G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue dated 20.5.1992, the criteria for restricting the tax under the Amended Act, 1991, to 5 times of the previous tax levied under Amended Act, 1975, is the tax on the holdings held by an assessee, as per the Amendment Act, 1991. As rightly contended by the Respondents that if the tax fixed for an assessee under the Amended Act 1975, on the basis of the previous market value as on 1.7.1971, exceeds the tax to be fixed under the amended Act, 1991 on the basis of market value as on 1.7.1981, then the concession of 5 times restriction would be applied only to those cases with a view to reduce the tax burden of that assessee. If the said G.O., has to be interpreted in the manner put forth by the Petitioner, then whenever there is a change in the aggregate extent of urban land held by any owner in any urban area as a result of any transfer and that the Assistant Commissioner has to treat it as a continuous assessment, then the same would defeat the very purpose of introduction of the words assessment or re-assessment in the above Section. The G.O. can be applied only in cases falling under Section 5-D(2) of the Principal Act and it cannot be extended to Section 19(5) of the Act. 40. In such view of the matter, the contentions made by the Petitioner that there is an error in assessment of the Petitioner’s land for the purpose of levy of urban tax, cannot be said to be countenanced. There is no irregularity in the assessment made by the Third Respondent. The Application filed under Form-35 as per Section 19(5)(b), cannot be considered as a continuous unit of the previous assessment and that the benefits of G.O.Ms. No.578, cannot be extended to Section 19(5). 41. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs.