ORDER : Heard Mr. V.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and M/s. Vasudha Thiagarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a Charitable Trust, and the challenge in this Writ Petition is to the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 31.07.2002, which is an order of assessment, passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') and the order passed by the first respondent, dated 28.06.2004, rejecting the petitioner's Revision Petition. 3. The primary ground, on which, the impugned orders have been challenged, is by contending both, the first and second respondents have passed orders, in violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner had no opportunity to place their arguments to fortify their case. Therefore, this Court proposes to examine such question first. 4. The petitioner preferred a Revision Petition under Section 30(1) of the Act before the first respondent, challenging the impugned order of assessment passed by the second respondent, dated 31.07.2002. Along with the Revision Petition, the petitioner enclosed the copy of the Trust Deed, and the Certificate issued under Section 12 of the Income Tax Act, in order to support their plea for exemption from the provisions of the Act, in terms of Section 29 of the Act. 5. The attention of this Court has been invited to para Nos.4 and 5 of the Revision Petition, wherein, the petitioner has specifically stated about the enclosures along with the Revision Petition. On the date fixed for hearing, which itself, was pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, it appears that the counsel appearing for the petitioner has circulated a letter, requesting to adjourn the matter, however, the Revisional Authority/first respondent was not inclined to adjourn the proceedings, as this Court has fixed primary time limit for disposal. However, while doing so, the error committed by the Revisional Authority is on account of the observation made that the petitioner did not produce documentary evidence for sustaining the claim for exemption. However, while doing so, the error committed by the Revisional Authority is on account of the observation made that the petitioner did not produce documentary evidence for sustaining the claim for exemption. The further observation of the Revisional Authority that, if the petitioner is a Charitable Trust, then, they have to approach the Government under Section 27 (1) of the Act, is also superfluous, since it is the case of the petitioner that they are Charitable Trust, and they are entitled for exemption, or exclusion from the provisions of the Act, in terms of Section 29 of the Act. 6. Thus, because, the first respondent/Revisional Authority proceeded to decide the Revision Petition without opportunity to the petitioner, it resulted in an erroneous order. Therefore, these are good and sufficient grounds to set aside the order passed by the first respondent/Revisional Authority. 7. Coming to the impugned order of assessment passed by the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner, dated 31.07.2002, it is also an ex parte order, without notice to the petitioner. 8. The specific case of the petitioner is that, they had no notice of the proceeding, and therefore, they could not appear before the second respondent. 9. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, signed by the second respondent, it is seen that the second respondent had issued a notice in Form 4 C to the Urban Land Owners, viz., i) Thiru P.V. Gajapathy Raju, ii) Rajkumar of Vijaya Nagar, and iii) late Maharani Vidhyavathi Devi Trust (petitioner) in respect of the property in S.No.4307/2, measuring 26 grounds, 743 sq.ft. and enquiry was fixed on 06.05.2002. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that one of the notices, viz., Tmt.Radha Gajapathy Raju, wife of P.V.Gajapathy Raju, sent a letter, dated 04.04.2002, to the second respondent, stating that the property belongs to her family group, consisting of her i) husband-P.V.Gajapathy Raju, ii) Rajkumar Sri. P.Vijayarama Gajapathy Raju and iii) Maharani Vidhyavathi Devi Trust (petitioner). Further, in the letter, it has been stated that the land was not assessed after 1991, and the Urban Land Tax payment was made upto 1991, and tax will be paid as soon as the assessment is made. Subsequently, by another letter, dated 17.04.2002, Tmt.Radha Gajapathy Raju requested the second respondent to assess the property separately, over which, each of them has 1/3rd right. Subsequently, by another letter, dated 17.04.2002, Tmt.Radha Gajapathy Raju requested the second respondent to assess the property separately, over which, each of them has 1/3rd right. Pursuant to which, the second respondent had issued a notice, calling for records to show the 1/3rd right over the property, as claimed by Tmt.Radha Gajapathy Raju. The second respondent also admitted that the copies of the judgment were filed subsequently, and he passed separate assessment orders in the name of i) Tmt.Radha Gajapathy Raju, ii) Thiru Vijayarama Gajapathy Raju, and iii) in the name of the petitioner-Trust, by taking 8 grounds, 1847 sq.ft. as share of each person. 10. Thus, it is evidently clear that, after the second respondent issued notice in Form 4 C, he was informed by one of the coowners of the property that there are other coowners, and each of them had specifically requested for separate assessment. In fact, this request has been obliged by the second respondent, in favour of other two co-owners, but, when it comes to the case of the petitioner, asssessment has been made, without notice, by taking 8 grounds, 1847 sq.ft. as an area, falling to the share of the petitioner Trust. 11. Therefore, it is evidently clear that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner had not been put on notice prior to the passing of the same. Hence, on that ground, this Court is convinced that the order passed by the second respondent, dated 31.07.2002, also deserves to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned orders passed by the first and second respondents are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration, who shall decide the matter afresh after notice to the petitioner, and affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The plea of the petitioner that they are entitled to exemption/exclusion from the provisions of the Act, under Section 29 of the Act should be considered by the second respondent while adjudicating the matter. Pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, dated 23.06.2015, the petitioner-Trust have paid a sum of Rs.40,000/-. This payment shall abide by the fresh orders to be passed by the second respondent on remand. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed.