Koshal, J. - By this judgment I shall dispose of three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India, namely Writ Petitions No, 1673 to 1675/74 in each one of which Respondent No. 1 is a person holding land which has been held by the Urban Land Tax Tribunal, Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) not to be liable to the levy of tax under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the land had been exempted from the payment of quit rent and that therefore. S. 23 of the Act absolved it from liability to tax thereunder. The petitioner in each of the three case is the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Madras who has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer that the order of the Tribunal in each case be quashed by a Writ of Certiorari.
2. S. 23 of the Act says that the Urban lane tax payable under the Act in respect of any urban land would be in lieu of six types of liabilities to which such land might be subject, including quit rent. The land in each of the cases before me had been exempted from the payment of quit rent and it was on that account that the Tribunal held that in such a situation no tax under the Act could be levied in respect thereof. That the conclusion of the Tribunal thus arrived at is untenable in law is conceded by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in each case on the authority of Sambasivam vs. The Assistant Commissioner Urban Land Tax (W.A. No. 312/1970) dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Veeraswami, C.J. and Gokulakriashna, J. on the 11th of August, 1970. The impugned orders of the Tribunal are therefore unsustainable. But the counsel aforesaid, however, contends that all the three petitions should be dismissed on the ground that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner u/S. 32 of the Act. That Section permits the Tribunal to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. The question therefore arises, whether the error of law on which the impugned order in each case is based is an error apparent on the face of the record within the meaning of that Section. In my opinion the answer to that question must be in the negative; for, a mere perusal of the impugned order does not bring to the forefront the said error which has to be concluded from a process of reasoning with the help of the language of the statue and a proper interpretation thereof. The contention therefore is without substance and is overruled.
3. In the result, the petitions succeed and are accepted and the impugned order in each case is set aside about with no order as to costs.