ORDER : Prayer: PETITION filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the order passed in G.O.Ms.No.128, Revenue Department dated 6.3.2000 as confirmed in G.O.Ms.No.514 Revenue Department dated 10.11.2004, quash the same and direct the respondents to forbear from determining the market value of the urban land and urban land tax and collect the tax in respect of urban lands owned by the petitioner as detailed The petitioner is the Thanthi Trust created under a Deed of Trust dated 01.03.1954 modified vide supplemental deed dated 28.06.1961, a Public Charitable Trust holding a registration under Section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Its objects are as follows: '(a) Establishing and running a school or college for the teaching of journalism; (b) Establishing and or running or helping to run schools, colleges or other educational institutions for teaching arts and science; (c) Establishing of scholarships for students of journalism, arts and science; (d) Establishing and or running or helping to run hostels for students; (e) Establishing and or running or helping to run orphanages and (f) Other educational purposes.' The petitioner owns various properties situated in Chennai, Vellore, Cuddalore, Erode, Coimbatore, Tiruchi, Madurai and Tirunelveli. According to the petitioner, the properties detailed below, comprise urban land with houses and buildings constructed thereupon that generate no income. Sl. No. Address Description Total Extent (1) 45, E.V.K. Sampath Road, Chennai 7. T.S. No. 656/1, 656/2 & 656/3. 43 grounds 1882 Sq.ft. (2) 1, Central Bus Stand, Madurai Ward No. 5, Block No.21, T.S. No.8/1 6 grounds 0362 Sq.ft. Ward No. IV, Block No.21, T.S. No.8. 10 grounds 1349 Sq.ft. (3) 18, Madurai Road, Tiruchi. Ward No. K, Block No.24, T.S. No.16 22 grounds 1278 Sq.ft., (4) No.8, Williams Rd., Tiruchi Ward No. K, Block No.22, T.S. No.6 3 grounds & 2046 Sq.ft. (5) 1031, Avinashi Rd, Coimbatore Ward No.w1, Block No. B, T.S.No.929/1G 18 grounds 0399 sq.ft. (6) 5C, Madurai Rd., Tirunelveli. TS.No.1107/1,1106/2, 1101/1A. 13 grounds 1512 Sq.ft. (7) 25B, Arcot Road, Vellore. Ward No.1, Block No.15, TS.No.2139 22 grounds 633 sq.ft., (8) 7, Chidambaram Road, Cuddalore Ward No.5, Block No.46, TS. No.1780/1. 14 grounds 2308 sq.ft., (9) 99, Nachiappa Rd., Erode Town No.A Block No.14, TS. No.12 (part) 2 Grounds 588 ¾ sq.ft. 2. (6) 5C, Madurai Rd., Tirunelveli. TS.No.1107/1,1106/2, 1101/1A. 13 grounds 1512 Sq.ft. (7) 25B, Arcot Road, Vellore. Ward No.1, Block No.15, TS.No.2139 22 grounds 633 sq.ft., (8) 7, Chidambaram Road, Cuddalore Ward No.5, Block No.46, TS. No.1780/1. 14 grounds 2308 sq.ft., (9) 99, Nachiappa Rd., Erode Town No.A Block No.14, TS. No.12 (part) 2 Grounds 588 ¾ sq.ft. 2. The crux of the Writ Petition is an exemption sought by the petitioner in terms of provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (in short 'Act'). 3. The petitioner sought exemption from the levy of urban land tax vide Application dated 09.12.1994 filed before the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. Admittedly, this petition was filed in terms of Section 27 of the Act. Pending disposal of the petition, the Secretary to Government had, vide order dated 05.04.1995 stayed the collection of urban land tax for the various properties held by the petitioner Trust. On 06.03.2000, the Application of the petitioner in terms of Section 27(1) was rejected. The primary ground for rejection was that the petitioner had the capacity to remit taxes which disentitled it for the exemption sought. The operative portion of the order is as follows: xxx xxx 4. A petition for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner, this time relying on the provisions of Section 29 (k) of the Act. The petitioner pointed out that Section 29 extended an exemption to Charitable Institutions, statutorily, from the levy of urban land tax. It is in response thereto that the impugned order dated 10.11.2004 has been passed by the respondent, without hearing it, rejecting its request. The main ground for rejection is that the provisions of Section 27 require satisfaction of certain parameters which, according to the respondent, the petitioner has not satisfied. The respondent also states that the request for an opportunity of hearing as prayed for, does not have to be extended since the provisions of Section 27 do not envisage such procedure. The operative portion of the order is extracted below: xxx xxx Consequent on the rejection, proceedings dated 05.01.2005 have been issued, instructing the authorities to take immediate steps to collect the arrears of urban land tax from the petitioner. 5. Mr. The operative portion of the order is extracted below: xxx xxx Consequent on the rejection, proceedings dated 05.01.2005 have been issued, instructing the authorities to take immediate steps to collect the arrears of urban land tax from the petitioner. 5. Mr. Sanjeevi, learned counsel for the petitioner illustrates the differences between the two statutory provisions, that is, Section 27 and 29 of the Act, pointing out that the scope and ambit of each provision is different. He reiterates that the Trust is a Public Charitable Trust that has devoted itself to the dissemination of Education and has been recognized by the Authorities under the Income Tax Act, as such. It is thus entitled to the exemption sought under Section 29(k) of the Act, which exempts any urban land actually used for religious, charitable or philanthropic institutions from the ambit of tax. He relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Agastyar Trust Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Revenue Department and Another [(2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 516] and a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Charitable Trust by its Chairman and Managing Trustee, Thiru M.Karunanidhi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Madras and Others [ (2008) 1 MLJ 700 ] in support of the claim for exemption. 6. In response, Mrs. Narmadha Sampath, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Prathap Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents points out that the rejection of the claim for exemption in terms of Section 27(1) of the Act is perfectly in order, since the Trust has not established that it has spent more than 90% of its income towards its objects. She refers to G.O. Ms.1834 Revenue Department dated 29.10.1983 and G.O. Ms. No.514 Revenue Department dated 10.11.2004 in this regard. In the light of the finding that the accounts for the relevant years, that is 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, show a surplus the petitioner would have faced no hardship whatsoever to remit the requisite tax and thus was not entitled to the claim. She points out that the provisions of Section 29(k) do not support the case of the petitioner, since the exemption would be available only to those lands that had been notified specifically in that regard. 7. She points out that the provisions of Section 29(k) do not support the case of the petitioner, since the exemption would be available only to those lands that had been notified specifically in that regard. 7. The relevant provisions of the Act, being Sections 27 and 29(k), are extracted herein below in order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the parties. '27. Power of Government to exempt or reduce urban land tax.-- (1) The Government, is satisfied that the payment of urban land tax in respect of any class of urban lands or by any class of persons will cause undue hardship, they may, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, by order-- (a) exempt such lands or persons from the payment of the urban land tax; or (b) reduce the amount of such urban land tax whether prospectively or retrospectively. .......' '29.Exemptions.-- Nothing in this Act shall apply to-- (a) any urban land owned by the State or the Central Government; ..... (k) subject to the provisions of this Section, any urban land actually used for religious, charitable or philanthropic purposes by such religious, charitable or philanthropic institutions, as the Government may, by notification, specify, but not including any urban land owned by such institutions and – (i) which is vacant, or (ii) in which buildings from which income is derived have been constructed; .......' 8. In my understanding of Section 29(k) and the construction and interpretation to be placed upon the same, I straightaway reject the argument of Mrs.Sampath to the effect that any 'urban land' in respect of which exemption is sought would have to be notified by the Government to be so eligible. This interpretation does not flow from the language of Section 29(k) of the Act, as the reference to 'notification' therein is to the religious, charitable or philanthropic Institutions that claim such exemption and not to the 'land' in respect of which exemption is sought. In the present case, the petitioner is admittedly registered as a Public Charitable Trust and hence, this requirement is met. 9. In the present case, the petitioner is admittedly registered as a Public Charitable Trust and hence, this requirement is met. 9. Coming to the conflicting claims in terms of Section 27 and 29 of the Act, it is my view that Section 27 confers a general power on the Government to exempt or reduce the levy and burden of urban land tax in respect of any 'class of urban lands’ and/or ‘class of persons' where undue hardship would be caused, if such reduction or exemption were not extended. Section 29, on the other hand, grants a statutory exemption in respect of specifically delineated urban lands classifying them either on the basis of ownership by specified entities or usage of the lands itself. Section 27 is not applicable in the present case, since the petitioner seeking exemption neither constitutes a class by itself nor is the exemption sought in respect of a class of urban lands. The exemption is rather sought by a public charitable trust in regard to a private holding of land. The exemption sought, thus in my view, falls within the second category where the petitioner seeks the benefit in respect of lands actually used, according to it, for charitable purposes by a charitable institution, such as itself. 10. The deployment of the lands in question for charitable purpose is a key feature of Section 29(k). However, there has been no examination at any stage as to how the petitioner utilises the lands in question. Both the petitioner as well as the respondents have proceeded initially only on the basis of Section 27 of the Act and whether the petitioner satisfies the conditions imposed in that regard by the Government. Though the petitioner has sought re-consideration of its claim for exemption in terms of Section 29(k) specifically, the impugned order does not examine this position and is silent in that regard. 11. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Agastyar Trust (supra) was considering the claim of exemption to urban land tax in the light of the very same Government Orders cited by the respondents before me. At paragraph No.16, the Bench notices a marked difference between the applications of Sections 27 and 29 of the Act, and summerises the differences at Para No.17 extracted below: ‘17. At paragraph No.16, the Bench notices a marked difference between the applications of Sections 27 and 29 of the Act, and summerises the differences at Para No.17 extracted below: ‘17. While under Section 29, the exemption is granted by the statute itself and is automatic in respect of the urban lands owned by the authorities or institutions referred to therein, the exemption under Section 27 is not so. For exemption under Section 27, power is vested with the State Government to exempt the lands or persons from payment of tax “if the Government is satisfied that the payment of urban land tax… would cause undue hardship”. Such power can be exercised by the Government only on specific application by the person or institution seeking exemption and on placing satisfactory by the person or institution seeking exemption and on placing satisfactory material for exercise of such power. The exemption under Section 27 is not a matter of right and does not follow as a matter of course.’ 12. In the case of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (supra), this Court has also embarked upon a comparison of Sections 27 and 29 in the following terms: ‘6. While the scope of exemption available under Section 29(k) of the Act is statutorily provided under the Act, the exemption to be granted under Section 27(1) of the Act will be in exercise of powers of the Act either to grant total exemption or partial exemption if in the opinion of the Government imposition of such Urban Land Tax would cause undue hardship to the applicant. While the exemption if any to be granted under section 27(1) of the Act is always subject to further modification or even cancellation of such exemption as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act, that is not the case when the statutory exemption provided under Section 29(k) of the Act is made. The stipulations contained in Section 27(1) for granting exemption from the payment of tax are far different from the total exemption to be granted from the provisions of the Act itself as provided under Section 29(k) of the Act. The criteria varies in very many respects when it comes to the question of grant of exemption under Section 29(k) as from the payment of the whole of the tax or a part of it to be granted under Section 27(1) of the Act. The criteria varies in very many respects when it comes to the question of grant of exemption under Section 29(k) as from the payment of the whole of the tax or a part of it to be granted under Section 27(1) of the Act. In either case it will have to be held that when a party claims exemption on the premise that such applicant fulfils the criteria as stipulated under section 29(k) of the Act or in the event of such an applicant satisfying the State Government the need for grant of exemption from payment of tax as provided under Section 27(1) of the Act, it is imperative that proper and relevant considerations are made either for grant or rejection of such exemption under either of the provisions. 7. In fact for grant of exemption from payment of tax as provided under Section 27(1) of the Act the State Government has issued various G.Os, ending with G.O.Ms No.1834 dated 29.10.83. A perusal of G.O. Ms. No.1834 discloses that in the various other G.Os., referred to therein certain norms and guidelines were prescribed for grant of total exemption from the payment of Urban Land Tax by invoking Section 27(1) of the Act. After setting out the above referred to G.Os., under G.O. Ms. No.1834 the following three stipulations have been set out as guidelines which reads as under: “3. The following are the existing guidelines and norms for considering the exemption applications: 1. The institutions should have been recognized as charitable and exemption granted under Section 12A (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The institutions should spend atleast 90% of its net income towards its objectives and purposes, after deducting all the inevitable charges, like payment of local taxes, repairs and maintenance etc. 3. The institution should be a public Trust and not a private trust.” 8. In contra distinction to such stipulations prescribed by the state Government in exercise of the powers under Section 27(1) of the Act.’ 13. The observations of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court support my conclusions in the matter to the effect that, in the present case, the appropriate provision that would be applicable for seeking exemption would be Section 29 of the Act. The observations of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court support my conclusions in the matter to the effect that, in the present case, the appropriate provision that would be applicable for seeking exemption would be Section 29 of the Act. Though Section 29 statutorily grants an exemption from levy of urban land tax, the entitlement of the petitioner is not automatic but, will have to be tested in the light of the specific conditions stipulated thereunder. 14. For this purpose, the petitioner is permitted to appear before the first respondent on Friday, the 25th of October, 2019 or any other date proximate to the aforesaid date, which the first respondent will intimate to the petitioner by issue of notice. Any material, including the reports of the Commissioner of Land Administration that the first respondent intends to rely upon will be furnished to the petitioner to solicit its response. Upon conclusion of the personal hearing, orders will be passed, in accordance with law and on merits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of conclusion of personal hearing. Specifically, the respondent shall satisfy himself that the condition of ‘actual use' of the land in respect of which exemption is sought is in line with legistative intent, that is, for religious, charitable or philanthropic purposes. 15. As regards the first prayer challenging G.O. Dated 6.3.2000, such prayer is misconceived as the application has itself proceeded only on the basis of the provisions of Section 27(1) and the order has consequently been passed only in relation to the aforesaid provision. Since I have held that the petitioner will not fall within the ambit of Section 27(1), this prayer is rejected. Government Order dated 10.11.2004 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed to this extent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.