Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 3.12.2008 issued vide Va.Vi.No.22/22A/22B/22C/Part 8/Mylapore 1991, with consequential relief to direct the respondent to hear the petitioner before assessment of Urban Tax and to pass further orders. 2. The petitioner purchased the land measuring 22240 sq.feet comprised in S.No.414/1 (part) situate in Mylapore revenue division Chennai from Tvl.T.V. Hari and others vide a registered sale deed dated 24.7.2006 registered as Document NO.2294 of 2006 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Mylapore. 3. The Sub Registrar, after registration of the document, referred it under Sec.47-A of Stamp Act to the Special Deputy Collector (stamps) for adjudication. It is submitted that during pendency of the proceedings under Sec.47-A of the Stamp Act, ‘Samadhan Scheme’ was framed by the State Government permitting the persons to remit the necessary stamp duty in terms of the scheme. 4. The petitioner, accordingly, invoked the provisions of the scheme and after paying requisite stamp duty and getting the sale deed registered, made request on 15.5.2007 to the Tahsildar to issue patta in respect of the lands purchased by the petitioner. The Sub Registrar, issued patta only in respect of 823 s.ft on 29.8.2007 corresponding to the land covered under item No.1 of B Schedule of the sale deed dated 24.7.2006 executed in favour of the petitioners. 5. The Tahsildar issued another patta on 25.4.2008 in respect of 16089 sq.ft in favour of the petitioners qua item no: 2 of B schedule and land covered by C schedule attached the sale deed. 6. However with regard to the land measuring 5324 sq.ft covered under A schedule to the sale deed patta was not issued in favour of the petitioners. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that they received a communication from the Tahsildar dated 8.9.2008, to the effect that patta would be issued in respect of the aforesaid remaining extent of land only after the petitioners express their consent to have their names included along with the name of Thiru.T.V. Hari and Nandagopal in the patta. The petitioner immediately brought to the notice of the Tahsildar that Thiru T.V. Hari has already sold the land in question in favour of the petitioners after receiving full sale consideration therefore has ceased to be the owner of the land. 8. It is also submitted that Thiru. The petitioner immediately brought to the notice of the Tahsildar that Thiru T.V. Hari has already sold the land in question in favour of the petitioners after receiving full sale consideration therefore has ceased to be the owner of the land. 8. It is also submitted that Thiru. Nandagopal has absolutely no title to any share in the land in respect of which the petitioners claimed patta. It is the case of the petitioners that they have not received any response from the Tahsildar to this letter. 9. The petitioner, submits that patta in respect of 2 grounds and 524 sq.ft is yet to be issued to the petitioners based on registered sale deed executed in their favour. 10. On earlier occasion, the petitioners, had filed Writ Petition No.29543 of 2008 for the issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk to issue patta with respect to 2 grounds and 524 sq.ft of land covered under S.No.414/1 (Part) to the petitioners based on the registered sale deed in their favour. 11. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the competent authority. 12. It is the case of the petitioners that while proceedings are pending with regard to grant of patta of the land sold to the petitioners, they received order dated 3.12.2008 levying urban tax on the petitioners qua the land covered under S.No.414/27 measuring 6 grounds and 1678 sq.ft. 13. It is submitted that there are several infirmities in the order regarding the area of the lands purchased by the petitioners and also regarding the attempted service of notice under the Urban Land tax Act on the petitioners. 14. That no notice under Urban Land Tax Act has been served on the petitioners, even though the respondent are in know of the correct address of all the petitioners, as the order refers to the entry in the revenue records relating to part of the lands purchased by the petitioners. It is thus submitted that because of the gross infirmities in the order, the petitioners have not been levied urban land tax on the total land owned by the petitioners. According to the petitioners they are liable to pay Urban Land Tax on the larger extent of land that mentioned in the impugned order. 15. It is thus submitted that because of the gross infirmities in the order, the petitioners have not been levied urban land tax on the total land owned by the petitioners. According to the petitioners they are liable to pay Urban Land Tax on the larger extent of land that mentioned in the impugned order. 15. The impugned order is challenged on the ground, that it has been passed without following the procedure and without notice to the petitioners, which was resulted in imposing less tax than actually payable by the petitioners. 16. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contends, that the impugned order is liable to be set aside for the reason, that the petitioners are liable to pay urban land tax on total land purchased and not only on the land qua which patta has been issued. It is also contended that this error has occurred, because notice of the proceedings for imposing urban tax was not issued to the petitioners. 17. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further states that the petitioners have no objection for payment of this tax, as the impugned order is challenged only on the ground that it does not cover the total land owned by the petitioners. 18. The learned Additional Government Pleader has no objection to petitioners depositing the tax, as per impugned order. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is, that in case, the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order in imposing less tax, the remedy with the petitioners to challenge the same by filing an appeal under Sec.20 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act 1996. 19. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader, that the petitioners cannot challenge the impugned order on the plea raised by the petitioners without showing that the petitioners have performed their statutory duty in furnishing requisite information as envisaged under the Act, to the competent authority, i.e., the respondent. 20. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this writ petition, it will be appropriate to look at to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act 1966. 21. 20. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this writ petition, it will be appropriate to look at to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act 1966. 21. Under Sec.5 of the Act, provision has been made to tax each urban land by imposing urban land tax on the owner of the land, whereas a duty is cast under the Act on the owner of the land to furnish requisite information regarding acquisition of land in urban area. 22. Under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act 1966, it is not open to the Assistant Commissioner, to go into the question as to whether the ownership of the property has been entered into the revenue records or not, as tax is to be imposed on the basis of ownership of the land. 23. It is the submission of the petitioners that once the sale deed is executed in favour of the petitioners, qua the larger extent of the land, whether the patta has been issued for that land or not is not the concern of the Assistant Commissioner, as he has to impose the tax on the owner of the property. 24. Ownership of the property is transferred by way of conveyance deed and not by issuance of patta, which is only a record of rights therefore dos not determine the ownership. Though presumption of truth is attached to revenue entry but the presumption is rebut table on production of documents of title. 25. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners therefore contends, the petitioners want to pay urban land tax for the larger extent of land then the one imposed. 26. Therefore, keeping in view the stand taken by the learned senior counsel, liberty is granted to the petitioners to deposit the urban land tax as claimed vide impugned order, with liberty to the petitioners to submit to the Assistant Commissioner for assessing urban land tax on the remaining land purchased by the petitioners, by following the procedure as laid down under Sec.10 of the Act. The assessment of tax or payment of urban tax will not be taken as proof or a document in support to the plea regarding grant of patta, pending before the authorities under the Patta Pass Pook Act, the appeal filed by the petitioners will be decided independent of any order which may be passed by the respondent on the information to be submitted by the petitioners. 27. The learned Additional Government Pleader does not oppose the payment of urban tax, and the requisite of the petitioner to approach respondent for assessing additional tax payable by the petitioners. 28. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to pay the demanded urban land tax with liberty to file return with the Assistant Commissioner for the remaining land for assessing urban land tax. 29. It shall be open to the Assistant Commissioner to go into the question whether tax is to be imposed on the remaining land or not. It shall be open to the respondent to take a decision as per provisions of the Act and Law. and pass a detailed order. 30. The order to be passed shall subject to the appeal under Sec.20 of the Act. Consequently, connected MP is closed. No costs.