Judgment :- Heard the arguments of Ms. S. Karpakavarthini, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Neelakantan, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.G.T.Subramaniam, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to issue property tax receipts in respect of the property in premises bearing New No.51, Old No.38/1 Perumal Koil garden 2nd Lane, Chennai79 from the 1st half financial year 2009 -2010 in the name of all the legal heirs of Sambanda Mudaliar and further directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to record the names of all legal heirs in the tax receipts even in the receipts issued already in the name of the 4th respondent alone. 3. Notice was directed to be issued to all the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner has served notice on all the respondents including the fourth respondent. Proof of service has been filed. The fourth respondent despite notice did not appear before this Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the premises in question was constructed by his forefather on lease hold land belonging to Sri Chenna Kesava Perumal Koil and the building belonged to his father M.Sambanda Mudaliar who having acquired it from a partition deed dated 21.01.1957. Ever since that date, his father was regularly paying the property tax in his name. The petitioners father M.Sambanda Mudaliar died on 21.05.1990, leaving behind his wife S.Indirani Ammal, the petitioner and four other brothers M/s.S.Anbazhagan, S.Rathinavelu, S.Rajasekaran, S.Elango and two sisters M/s.Neelavathi, S.Geetha Bai to succeed to his property. After the death of his father, all the legal heirs became the joint owners of the property. 5. In the mean while, the fourth respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner had started paying property tax in his name alone instead of in the name of all legal heirs. The respondents 2 and 3 without verifying the records started issuing receipts in the name of the fourth respondent. They also did not insist on production of legal heirship certificate in respect of the heirs of late Sambanda Mudaliar. They did not follow any procedure. When the petitioner questioned the action of the fourth respondent, he gave evasive reply. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 15.05.2009 to the third respondent and requested to take appropriate action. They also did not insist on production of legal heirship certificate in respect of the heirs of late Sambanda Mudaliar. They did not follow any procedure. When the petitioner questioned the action of the fourth respondent, he gave evasive reply. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 15.05.2009 to the third respondent and requested to take appropriate action. The petitioner after taking recourse to Right to Information Act sought for the copies of the property tax receipts issued by the respondents. When the respondents were not taking action, he came to file the present writ petition. 6. When the matter came up on 25.11.2009, this Court directed the third respondent to appear and explain as to why he had started issuing tax receipts in the name of fourth respondent to the detriment of all the legal heirs. Accordingly, on 03.12.2009, the third respondent appeared and attempted to give some explanation. By an order dated 03.12.2009, he was directed to file an affidavit with reference to the steps proposed to be taken by him on the grievance projected by the petitioner. Subsequently, on 08.12.2009, the original file relating to the issue was directed to be produced. Initially, the third respondent gave written remarks dated 07.12.2009 stating that as per the Rules, the name transfer can be mutated only after production of documents such as Sale Deed or Settlement Deed and in case of inheritance of property only after production of death certificate and legal heirship certificate. It was stated that in the case of petitioner, the then officer mutated only after verifying any one of the documents. If the petitioner now applies for mutation with any of the above documents, the respondents will act in accordance with law. It was further stated that if the petitioner produces any valuable document, the earlier mutation order will be cancelled and fresh orders will be issued as per Rules in force. 7. By these written instructions, the third respondent was attempting to shirk his official responsibility. The question to be asked is why either he or some other person made the first mutation by started issuing property tax receipts in favour of the fourth respondent alone when the earlier receipts were issued only in the name of the late Sambanda Mudaliar. Therefore, he was directed to file a counter affidavit. 8. The question to be asked is why either he or some other person made the first mutation by started issuing property tax receipts in favour of the fourth respondent alone when the earlier receipts were issued only in the name of the late Sambanda Mudaliar. Therefore, he was directed to file a counter affidavit. 8. Accordingly, a counter affidavit dated 14.12.2009 was filed by the third respondent, wherein he had made the following averments: "I submit that the property mentioned in the petition was originally owned by Thiru M.Sambanda Mudaliar. I submit that property records pertaining to property tax etc. on the file of the Corporation was only in the name of M.Sambanda Mudaliar. I submit that as per the rules of the Chennai Corporation the name transfer can be affected only on production of Sale deed, Settlement Deed, Death Certificate, Legal Heir Certificate or through a competent court order. I submit that in the above case during General Revision in 2/1998-1999 the 4th respondent filed a property return form and gave a declaration to the effect that he was the owner of the property. However due to work Load of General Revision and by inadvertence officer then incharge had made a entry in the name of the 4th respondent Mr.Rathinavelu. I submit that immediately after such entry his name was entered in the corporation Assessee Ledger and the periodical payments and assessment were made in same name without any objections upto 2009. I submit that since no rival claimants approached us from 1998 to 2009 we were unable to correct the said entry. I submit that the petitioner approached us during May 2009 and gave representation on 15.05.2009 addressed to the third respondent stating the real facts of the matter along with connected documents such as Death Certificates and Legal heir Certificate. I submit that under these circumstances it is necessary for us to make an enquiry of the genuineness of the claim and to pass orders accordingly. Hence I apologize for the mistake committed by the then officer who is not in service now and submit this Honble Court that we will consider the representation dated 15.05.2009 and pass the necessary orders." 9. The stand of the third respondent clearly shows that they had acted contrary to the Rules. Hence I apologize for the mistake committed by the then officer who is not in service now and submit this Honble Court that we will consider the representation dated 15.05.2009 and pass the necessary orders." 9. The stand of the third respondent clearly shows that they had acted contrary to the Rules. Having taken a stand that mutation can be made only on the production of certain documents, no such document was sought from the fourth respondent at any point of time. On the contrary, he went only by a self-declaration given by the fourth respondent. It is too late for him to state that by inadvertence the officer then incharge had made such entry. Even after being twice summoned to this Court, the third respondent never showed any remorse or regret for the act done by him. In effect by changing the issuance of property receipts in favour of one member of the family to the detriment of others without production of any record, he had acted contrary to the procedure and Rules of the Corporation. This had forced the petitioner to come to this Court. The office of the third respondent started acting like a Court or a Tribunal suo motu changing the records of the Corporation. Even when the matter is brought to his notice, instead of rectifying the mistake done by him or some other person in his seat, he seeks for an appropriate application on the side of the petitioner to effect further mutation. 10. The prayer of the petitioner is to restore status quo ante that stood before the third respondent effected mutation of records and started giving receipts exclusively in the name of fourth respondent. It is only when that stage is reached, the question of further mutation by concerned parties will arise. The conduct of the third respondent cannot be appreciated. There are strong suggestions from the side of the petitioner that his office was accentuated by corrupt motives in making such uni-lateral change of the records. On the contrary, he wanted the petitioner to file appropriate application to once again effect a further change. However, this Court in more than one occasion had received such complaints against the officers of the Corporation in effecting uni-lateral change of names in the property tax receipts. On the contrary, he wanted the petitioner to file appropriate application to once again effect a further change. However, this Court in more than one occasion had received such complaints against the officers of the Corporation in effecting uni-lateral change of names in the property tax receipts. If it is left unchecked, then it may give rise to further source of corruption and this Court is not inclined to take it lightly. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. The third respondent is directed to restore status quo ante in the issuance of property tax receipts paid in respect of the property in question and issue it in the name of M.Sambanda Mudaliar. Any change in it can be made after appropriate documents are produced before him by concerned parties. 12. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to be paid by the third respondent to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.