Case Law Details
Airports Authority of India Vs Special Commissioner & Commissioner, Land Reforms (Madras High Court)
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the land details along with the letter issued by the Airport Authority of India dated 13.07.2021. The land details would reveal that the lands were handed over to Director General of Civil Aviations and the letter would further state that the Director General of Civil Aviations and Airport Authority of India is wholly owned by the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviations and therefore, they are entitled to claim exemption under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act. However, now the subject lands are vested with the petitioner / Airport Authority of India and the said fact is not in dispute. Question has raised, whether the property is vested in the Airport Authority of India, can yet be called as the properties of Union within the meaning of Article 285 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the exempt from all taxes imposed by the State. The answer to the said question was categorically decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Commissioner of Dum Dum (cited supra).
In the case of International Airport Authority Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported in AIR 1991 Delhi 302, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court categorically considered the similar issue and held that the property in question namely, terminal II of Indira Gandhi International Airport is not the property of the Central Government and is the property of the Authority, and the respondent Corporation is entitled to levy and realize taxes from the petitioner under Section 113 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The Delhi High Court also took a same view that a contention was sought to be raised that the municipal tax could not be levied on the property of the company by virtue of Art. 285(1) of the Constitution because the company was owned by the Government. It was held by the Supreme Court that merely because the entire share capital was subscribed by the Government of India, it did not mean that the company did not own the property in question. It was held that the company was a separate legal entity.
The principles settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Commissioner of Bum Bum (cited supra) would squarely apply to the issues raised in the present writ petition and therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be construed as ‘Central Government’ within the meaning of exemption clause as contemplated under Section 29 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 and consequently, the respondents are empowered to levy the Urban Land Tax under the provisions of the said Act. Thus, there is no infirmity or perversity in respect of the orders impugned in original passed by the second respondent as well as the Appellate order passed by the first respondent. The petitioner/ Airport Authority of India is liable to pay the Urban Land Tax as applicable and in this view of the matter, all the writ petitions fail and stand dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
