✦ High Court of India · 03 Apr 2025

BY AD vs N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)

Case Details High Court of India · 03 Apr 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
03 Apr 2025
Bench
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Length
1,065 words

BY ADVS. N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SHRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, TVPM CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 -:2:- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P2 order of regularisation of building, Exhibit-P3 intimation notice, and Exhibit-P4 demand notice apart from Exhibit-P6 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution, Thiruvananthapuram, dismissing petitioner’s revision petition.

2. Petitioner had purchased a property in 2016 having an extent of 7 cents with two buildings on it as TC 22/103 and TC 22/104. According to the petitioner, the buildings were constructed in the year 2006 and the property tax was being remitted by the previous owner. However, after purchase by the petitioner on 02.11.2016, when an application was made to change the assessment to her name, it was informed that there was unauthorised construction. At the request of the Revenue Inspector, an application for regularisation was submitted, pursuant to which Exhibit-P2 order was issued, regularising certain additional constructions carried out. Subsequently, a fresh assessment of the building was carried out, and an intimation in Form-5 of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 -:3:- Surcharge) Rules, 2011, was issued followed by a demand notice on

17.06.2017, demanding property tax for the second half of 2016-17 as per Exhibit-P4.

3. Challenging the demand notice, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Standing Committee, and though a decision is stated to have been taken on 29.11.2017, petitioner alleges that she was not be served with a copy of the said decision. Subsequently, a revision petition was preferred before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions as R.P. No.3/2019. However, by Exhibit-P6 order, the revision petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition.

4. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent pointing out that the building was constructed contrary to the details contained in the assessment register, and therefore, at the request of the Revenue Department, petitioner filed an application for regularisation of the unauthorised construction. Thereafter, assessment of property tax for the second half of 201-17 onwards, was carried out. Challenging the assessment and the demand notice, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Standing Committee, and the decision of the Committee was duly intimated to the petitioner by post on

22.12.2017. Later, petitioner submitted an appeal ‘before the Mayor’ on 28.10.2018, and petitioner was informed that no appeal will lie W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 -:4:- before the Mayor, as the remedy is to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which was communicated on

28.11.2018. The respondent further stated that the petitioner had deposited the regularisation fees and also that the tax has been assessed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law.

5. Certain additional documents have been produced by the respondents along with I.A. No.1 of 2025. The documents include Exhibit-R2(c), which is the return filed by the petitioner under Form-2 appended to the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules 2011, and the assessment is stated to have been carried out on the basis of the said return.

6. I have heard Sri. P. B. Sahasranaman, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

7. The demand notice challenged in this writ petition was issued as early as on 17.06.2017. Petitioner had challenged the said demand notice before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed, against which, she had approached the Tribunal. Since the revision petition was barred by limitation, the Tribunal dismissed the same.

8. Notwithstanding the above, on a perusal of the demand notice, there is nothing to indicate any perversity or any error warranting an interference by this Court under Article 226 of the W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 -:5:- Constitution of India. The tax assessed on petitioner’s building is based on Exhibit-R2(c) return filed by the petitioner and therefore, there cannot be any cause for complaint.

9. The contention of the petitioner that the property tax was fixed without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to file returns or claim exemption is disproved by Exhibit-R2(c). Further, the allegation relating to classification of areas in different zones was carried out without following the procedure prescribed under the Act, is belied by the very return submitted by the petitioner. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition therefore fails, and it is dismissed. JUDGE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS Jka/03.04.25. Sd/- W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 -:6:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25259/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 30.6.2006. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 29.3.2017. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 17.6.2017. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 17.6.2017. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 19.11.2008. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, DATED 24.1.2019. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT, DATED 18.12.2017. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, S.O.(MS).NO.144/15 L&SD. DATED 27.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit -R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 24.12.2013 Exhibit -R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 02.06.2014 Exhibit -R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.2 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 05.05.2017 Exhibit -R2(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.07.2023 BY THE PETITIONER

BY ADVS. N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SHRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, TVPM CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 -:2:- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P2 order of regularisation of building, Exhibit-P3 intimation notice, and Exhibit-P4 demand notice apart from Exhibit-P6 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution, Thiruvananthapuram, dismissing petitioner’s revision petition.

2. Petitioner had purchased a property in 2016 having an extent of 7 cents with two buildings on it as TC 22/103 and TC 22/104. According to the petitioner, the buildings were constructed in the year 2006 and the property tax was being remitted by the previous owner. However, after purchase by the petitioner on 02.11.2016, when an application was made to change the assessment to her name, it was informed that there was unauthorised construction. At the request of the Revenue Inspector, an application for regularisation was submitted, pursuant to which Exhibit-P2 order was issued, regularising certain additional constructions carried out. Subsequently, a fresh assessment of the building was carried out, and an intimation in Form-5 of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 -:3:- Surcharge) Rules, 2011, was issued followed by a demand notice on

17.06.2017, demanding property tax for the second half of 2016-17 as per Exhibit-P4.

3. Challenging the demand notice, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Standing Committee, and though a decision is stated to have been taken on 29.11.2017, petitioner alleges that she was not be served with a copy of the said decision. Subsequently, a revision petition was preferred before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions as R.P. No.3/2019. However, by Exhibit-P6 order, the revision petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition.

4. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent pointing out that the building was constructed contrary to the details contained in the assessment register, and therefore, at the request of the Revenue Department, petitioner filed an application for regularisation of the unauthorised construction. Thereafter, assessment of property tax for the second half of 201-17 onwards, was carried out. Challenging the assessment and the demand notice, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Standing Committee, and the decision of the Committee was duly intimated to the petitioner by post on

22.12.2017. Later, petitioner submitted an appeal ‘before the Mayor’ on 28.10.2018, and petitioner was informed that no appeal will lie W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 -:4:- before the Mayor, as the remedy is to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which was communicated on

28.11.2018. The respondent further stated that the petitioner had deposited the regularisation fees and also that the tax has been assessed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law.

5. Certain additional documents have been produced by the respondents along with I.A. No.1 of 2025. The documents include Exhibit-R2(c), which is the return filed by the petitioner under Form-2 appended to the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules 2011, and the assessment is stated to have been carried out on the basis of the said return.

6. I have heard Sri. P. B. Sahasranaman, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

7. The demand notice challenged in this writ petition was issued as early as on 17.06.2017. Petitioner had challenged the said demand notice before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed, against which, she had approached the Tribunal. Since the revision petition was barred by limitation, the Tribunal dismissed the same.

8. Notwithstanding the above, on a perusal of the demand notice, there is nothing to indicate any perversity or any error warranting an interference by this Court under Article 226 of the W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 -:5:- Constitution of India. The tax assessed on petitioner’s building is based on Exhibit-R2(c) return filed by the petitioner and therefore, there cannot be any cause for complaint.

9. The contention of the petitioner that the property tax was fixed without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to file returns or claim exemption is disproved by Exhibit-R2(c). Further, the allegation relating to classification of areas in different zones was carried out without following the procedure prescribed under the Act, is belied by the very return submitted by the petitioner. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition therefore fails, and it is dismissed. JUDGE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS Jka/03.04.25. Sd/- W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 -:6:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25259/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 30.6.2006. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 29.3.2017. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 17.6.2017. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 17.6.2017. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 19.11.2008. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, DATED 24.1.2019. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT, DATED 18.12.2017. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, S.O.(MS).NO.144/15 L&SD. DATED 27.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit -R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 24.12.2013 Exhibit -R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 02.06.2014 Exhibit -R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.2 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 05.05.2017 Exhibit -R2(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.07.2023 BY THE PETITIONER

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments