ORDER : PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in R.C.No.3764/2003 (D2), dated 10.10.2006 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and further directing the third respondent to revise the assessment as per the order of the second respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.6942/2000 E5, dated 04.12.2001. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in R.C.No.3764/2003 (D2), dated 10.10.2006 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and further direct the third respondent to revise the assessment as per the order of the second respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.6942/2000 E5, dated 04.12.2001. 2. The necessary facts which are to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows : (i) The petitioner owns an extent of 39.0865 grounds of land in T.S.No.8/1A, Ward 11, Block No.1, Coimbatore. Out of the total extent of the land, an extent of 2 grounds exempted from Urban Land Tax. In respect of remaining extent, the tax was originally fixed at Rs.8233.40/- per fasli. However, long thereafter, the third respondent herein, in exercise of the power under Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (in short "the Act") revised assessment by stating that the petitioner has not filed any return as provided for under Section 7(D) of the Act. The third respondent, therefore passed an order dated 18.11.1993 reassessing the tax and also imposed a penalty of Rs.2,058/- for non-submission of return as contemplated under Section 7(D) of the Act. (ii) Aggrieved over the said order passed by the third respondent, dated 18.11.1993, the petitioner filed an appeal, originally before the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. Subsequently the case was transferred to the District Revenue Officer, i.e., the Tribunal under the Act at Coimbatore, who is the second respondent herein. (iii) The second respondent, District Revenue Officer/Tribunal, after having considered the appeal filed by the petitioner, had passed an order on 04.12.2001, whereby the second respondent having set aside the order passed by the third respondent, dated 18.11.1993 had remanded the matter back to the third respondent for re-consideration and to make a fresh order of assessment. (iii) The second respondent, District Revenue Officer/Tribunal, after having considered the appeal filed by the petitioner, had passed an order on 04.12.2001, whereby the second respondent having set aside the order passed by the third respondent, dated 18.11.1993 had remanded the matter back to the third respondent for re-consideration and to make a fresh order of assessment. The relevant portion of the order passed by the second respondent, vide his order, dated 04.12.2001 reads thus : xxx xxxx (iv) Pursuant to the said order of remand passed by the second respondent, dated 04.12.2001, the third respondent, on 09.07.2002, directed the petitioner to appear for an enquiry. The said notice, dated 09.07.2002 of the third respondent reads thus : (v) Pursuant to the said notice issued by the third respondent, the petitioner appeared before the third respondent and accordingly, he conducted an enquiry on 04.12.2002 and on that date, enquiry was concluded. Thereafter since no revised order of assessment was passed by the third respondent, the petitioner had given request/reminders on the following dates 30.01.2003, 25.04.2003, 06.09.2003 and 28.01.2004. On 25.04.2003, the petitioner had also sent a communication/request to the second respondent, seeking his intervention to give a direction to the third respondent to pass revised orders of assessment, pursuant to the enquiry, which was concluded on 04.12.2002. (vi) Since repeated request made by the petitioner to the third respondent and also the request made to the second respondent has not yielded any result, as the third respondent did not come forward to pass any revised order of assessment, the petitioner on 11.04.2005 has made a similar request to the first respondent, i.e., the Principal Commissioner and the Commissioner for Land Reforms and Urban Land Tax. Thereafter it seems that the first respondent instead of directing the third respondent to pass orders as per the remand order made by the second respondent, dated 04.12.2001 and also pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the third respondent, dated 04.12.2002, had directed the petitioner to appear before the first respondent on 24.01.2006. The representative of the petitioner also appeared before the first respondent on 24.01.2006 and made a request that the third respondent, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Coimbatore may be directed to pass revised order as per the direction of the second respondent, District Revenue Officer/Tribunal, Urban Land Tax. The representative of the petitioner also appeared before the first respondent on 24.01.2006 and made a request that the third respondent, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Coimbatore may be directed to pass revised order as per the direction of the second respondent, District Revenue Officer/Tribunal, Urban Land Tax. (vii) When the matter stood thus, the petitioner shockingly received the impugned order, dated 10.10.2006 passed by the first respondent, whereby the first respondent seems to have taken a suo moto proceedings as against the order passed by the second respondent, dated 04.12.2001 and based on which, he passes the said order, whereby the order of the second respondent, dated 04.12.2001 was set aside and the order of assessment of Urban Land Tax passed by the third respondent, dated 18.11.1993 was restored ofcourse with some modification. (viii) Aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent, dated 10.10.2006, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 3. Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in the scheme of the Act, once an assessment is made by the Assistant Commissioner concerned and if the assessee is aggrieved over the said assessment, he can make appeal to the Tribunal, which was constituted under the Act. As the second respondent was acting as the Tribunal, before whom the appeal filed already by the petitioner was heard, by way of transfer of appeal from the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. The second respondent after hearing the appeal filed by the petitioner had rightly concluded that the order of assessment passed by the third respondent, dated 18.11.1993 was not proper and therefore, he set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the third respondent for re-consideration, ofcourse after giving the opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 4. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that, pursuant to the assessment order passed by the second respondent, the third respondent called the petitioner for enquiry, accordingly, on 04.12.2001, enquiry was conducted, where the petitioner participated and put forward his case in support of his claim for the revised assessment. However, thereafter no final order was passed by the third respondent for the reasons best known to him, in spite of the several requests and reminders having been made by the petitioner in this regard. 5. However, thereafter no final order was passed by the third respondent for the reasons best known to him, in spite of the several requests and reminders having been made by the petitioner in this regard. 5. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that, in this regard a request was also made to the second respondent, seeking for appropriate direction to the third respondent to pass the revised order, even that was not yielded any result. Subsequently the petitioner has made a similar request on 11.04.2005 to the first respondent, seeking his intervention to give a direction to the third respondent to pass revised order, pursuant to the enquiry he has concluded as early as on 04.12.2002. The relevant portion of the request made by the petitioner to the first respondent on 11.04.2005 reads thus : "We wish to inform to the Special Commissioner that though the enquiry has been conducted by the Asst. Commissioner, Urban Land Tax as early as on 04.12.2002, no revised assessment orders has been received so far. The matter is pending for more than 3 years. Hence we request that the Special Commissioner may kindly issue necessary instructions in this matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Coimbatore to issue the revised assessment order early." 6. Pursuant to the said request made by the petitioner, the petitioner was directed to appear before the first respondent on 24.01.2006 and on that date, the representative of the petitioner did appear before the first respondent and made a request that the third respondent, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, can be directed to pass revised order as per the orders of the District Revenue Officer/Tribunal. 7. However, shockingly the present impugned order, dated 10.10.2006 was passed by the first respondent, as if that the petitioner has made an appeal to the first respondent to decide the issue as against the orders passed by the second respondent. 8. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that, assuming that the said order was passed by invoking the suo moto power conferred on the first respondent under the Act, even then, the first respondent ought not to have passed this order, which is impugned, as he was precluded from exercising his power beyond three years from the date of order passed by the Tribunal. 9. 9. The learned Senior counsel would also submit that, even on merits, the reasoning given by the first respondent in the impugned order would not be sustained, as he had justified the way in which the third respondent had taken into account the sale deed pertaining to another Ward, which is no way connected to the property of the petitioner, which is situated in different ward within the Coimbatore city and therefore, both on jurisdiction as well as on merits, the impugned order would not be sustained, therefore the same has to be interfered with. 10. Per contra, Mr.G.B.Rajesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that, no doubt there was no appeal filed by the third respondent against the order of the second respondent, remitting the matter back to the third respondent for reconsideration by his order, dated 04.12.2001. However the first respondent is having a suo moto power under Section 30 of the Act to call for records of any proceedings under the Act to satisfy as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed under the Act and it can be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for re-consideration. 11. So if no appeal had been filed either by the petitioner or by the third respondent against the order of the second respondent, dated 04.12.2001, the power of the first respondent under Section 30 of the Act cannot be said to be denuded, as all such power to take suo moto action is always vest with the first respondent. 12. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that, since the sale deed submitted by the petitioner, even though was the year of 1981, of a land at ward No.11, where the property of the petitioner was situated, which is not at the ward, i.e., ward No.8, the sale deed, which was taken up for consideration by the third respondent of the year 1980 and it fetches more market value of the property said to be sold on the sale deed. Therefore the guideline value of the property in the nearby vicinity can be taken into account for the purpose of assessing the market value of the property, for the purpose of Urban Land Tax Assessment. Therefore the guideline value of the property in the nearby vicinity can be taken into account for the purpose of assessing the market value of the property, for the purpose of Urban Land Tax Assessment. Therefore on merits also, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, i.e., the third respondent in the original order of assessment, dated 18.11.1993 can be very well justified. Therefore the first respondent in exercising of his suo moto powers conferred under Section 30 of the Act has called for records and after receipt of representation from the third respondent has passed the detailed order, of course after giving opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, the order impugned can very well be justified and it requires no interference from this Court. 13. I have heard the said rival submissions made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 14. The fact remains that, the property in question belongs to the petitioner is located in the urban area, therefore it covers under the Urban Land Tax Act. Since no self assessment had been filed by the petitioner as contemplated under the Act, it became necessary for the third respondent to make an assessment, accordingly, he made an assessment, of course after considering the claim made by the petitioner as well as the materials available to him through other source and he has come to a conclusion and passed order of assessment, dated 18.11.1993. Against the said order passed by the third respondent since appeal has been provided under Section 20 of the Act, the said appeal was filed initially before the Sub-Court, Coimbatore and thereafter on constitution or conferment of power of the Tribunal to the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, the said appeal filed by the petitioner was transferred and heard by the second respondent, who passed orders on 04.12.2001. In the said order, the second respondent, after having considered the merits of the case, came to a conclusion that the assessment made by the third respondent was not justifiable and therefore, after re-consideration the matter was remitted back to the third respondent. 15. In the said order, the second respondent, after having considered the merits of the case, came to a conclusion that the assessment made by the third respondent was not justifiable and therefore, after re-consideration the matter was remitted back to the third respondent. 15. It is also a fact that, pursuant to the order of remand made by the second respondent, the third respondent also on 09.07.2002 issued notice to the petitioner to appear before him for enquiry on the process of re-consideration. Accordingly on 04.12.2002, enquiry was conducted, the petitioner also appeared and he had made his submissions along with supporting documents and the enquiry was concluded on that day. Thereafter normally order of re-assessment or revised order of re-assessment should have been passed within a reasonable time by the third respondent. However, without any plausible reason, as no reason has been cited by the third respondent, the passing of revised order of re-assessment has not been made and it has been delayed for years together. 16. In the meanwhile several requests and representations had been made by the petitioner to the third respondent for passing the revised order and in this regard, the petitioner also has made a similar request, seeking direction from the second respondent to the third respondent to pass revised orders and such request also was made by the petitioner to the second respondent on 25.04.2003. 17. Even the said attempt made by the petitioner have not yielded any result, the petitioner has made a similar request on 11.04.2005 to the first respondent and the portion of the letter has already been extracted, where the petitioner has only sought for the intervention of the first respondent to give direction to the third respondent to pass revised order of assessment, pursuant to the enquiry he has completed as early as on 04.12.2002. Except these communications, nothing had been made by the petitioner to the first respondent. 18. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that, on perusal of the records, it does not discloses that the third respondent, against the order of the second respondent, dated 04.02.2001 has made any appeal to the first respondent. Therefore the fact remains that, neither the petitioner nor the third respondent has made any appeal or revision before the first respondent against the order of the second respondent, dated 04.02.2001. 19. Therefore the fact remains that, neither the petitioner nor the third respondent has made any appeal or revision before the first respondent against the order of the second respondent, dated 04.02.2001. 19. So, based on the request for intervention to give direction to the third respondent to pass the revised order of assessment, as requested by the petitioner, dated 11.04.2005, it seems that, the first respondent called for records of the assessment from the third respondent and also called for appearance of the petitioner and pursuant to which, the petitioner also appeared on 24.01.2006. The petitioner's representative had made a request only to give a direction to the third respondent to pass a revised order and this has been in fact recorded by the first respondent in the impugned order, which reads as follows : "Before taking decision, an opportunity was given to the urban land owner to hear the objections. Accordingly, this case was heard on 24.01.2006. The company's representative appeared and requested to direct the Assistant Commissioner (ULT) Coimbatore to pass revised orders as per the direction of the District Revenue Officer, Tribunal." 20. Except the said request as recorded and admitted by the first respondent, no other request seems to have been made by the petitioner to the first respondent to decide the issue on merits. 21. While that being so, the impugned order has been passed, decided the case on merits without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In this regard, though it was argued by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that, the first respondent since having the power under Section 30 of the Act to suo moto call for records and pass orders and that has been exercised in this case, this Court is not impressed with the said submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, as Section 30 contemplates certain procedure to be followed while exercising the suo moto power. 22. 22. In order to assess the same, Section 30 has to be looked into, which reads as follows : "30 (1) The Board of Revenue may either on its own motion or on application made by the assessee in this behalf, call for and examine the records of any proceeding under this Act (not being a proceeding in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal under section 20) to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if, in any case, it appears to the Board of Revenue, that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly : Provided that the Board of Revenue shall not pass any order under this sub-section in any case, where the decision or order is sought to be revised by the Board of Revenue on its own motion, if such decision or order had been made more than three years previously. Provided further that the Board of Revenue shall not pass any order under this section prejudicial to any party unless he has had a reasonable opportunity of making his representations. (2) The Board of Revenue may stay the execution of any such decision or order pending the exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof. (3) Every application to the Board of Revenue for the exercise of its powers under this section shall be preferred within three months from the date on which the order or proceeding to which the application relates was received by the applicant. Provided that the Board of Revenue may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding one month for the filing of any such application, if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the time specified in this sub-section." 23. On a plain reading of Section 30 of the Act, it discloses that, the first respondent is empowered to take suo moto action by exercising the power under this section. On a plain reading of Section 30 of the Act, it discloses that, the first respondent is empowered to take suo moto action by exercising the power under this section. He can call for the records pertaining to any proceedings under this Act and if he is satisfied that the order passed so under the provisions of this Act is not sustainable, based on the correctness, legality or propriety of such decision, he can pass orders modifying, annulling, reversing the said decision and can remit the matter for re-consideration. 24. However the first proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that, such suo moto power shall not be exercised against any orders passed three years prior to the suo moto proceedings. The second proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act further envisages that, the first respondent shall not pass any orders prejudicial to any party, unless he has had a reasonable opportunity of making his representations. 25. If the said provision of Section 30 (1) with provisos are applied to the facts of this case, whether the decision taken by the first respondent, as reflected in the impugned order, can be sustained, is the question to be answered. 26. As has been discussed above, there was no appeal filed either by the petitioner or the third respondent. Therefore it can be safely concluded that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is only under the suo moto power under Section 30(1) of the Act. If it is a suo moto proceedings, the order setting aside the order passed by the second respondent, dated 04.12.2001 hit the first proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act. As the impugned order is dated 10.10.2006 and assuming that the request made by the petitioner, dated 11.04.2005 to intervene to give a direction to the third respondent to pass revised orders, pursuant to the assessment order passed by the second respondent, dated 04.12.2001, triggered the first respondent to take suo moto proceedings, even that date would not cure the three years limitation period, as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act. 27. Secondly, it has been specifically recorded by the first respondent in the impugned order that, on 24.01.2006 the representative of the petitioner appeared and had made request to give direction to the third respondent to pass the revised orders. 27. Secondly, it has been specifically recorded by the first respondent in the impugned order that, on 24.01.2006 the representative of the petitioner appeared and had made request to give direction to the third respondent to pass the revised orders. Nowhere in the impugned order, the first respondent has made any observation or finding that the petitioner had been heard on merits of the issue. When that being so, it can also be safely concluded that, no opportunity was given to the petitioner for making his representation, as contemplated under second proviso to Section 30(1). 28. Therefore it become obvious that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is in violation of Section 30(1) of the Act in the context of the first proviso as well as in the context of second proviso also. 29. In view of such violation on the part of the first respondent, as he ought not have exercised the suo moto power beyond the three years period and also he should not have passed the impugned order without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on merits of the issue, the said order, which is impugned herein, can be safely concluded, to be an unsustainable one, and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 30. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the third respondent for re-consideration. By making such exercise of re-consideration, the third respondent can pass orders based on the enquiry conducted by the office of the third respondent on 04.02.2001 or if the third respondent decides to hear the petitioner once again, he can do so by issuing notice to the petitioner and on receipt of the same, the petitioner shall appear before the third respondent and present his case with relevant documents. Thereafter final order of re-assessment shall be passed by the third respondent and the said exercise as indicated above shall be completed by the third respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these directions, this writ petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.