Disposed

M/S.Leader Properties and Estates Private Limited v. Corporation of Kochi

Kerala HC29 Jun 2012WP(C)/6586/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the fifth respondent to consider and pass orders on an application for regularization within three months. It held the writ petition regarding property tax demands challenging an assessment in the name of a third party was not maintainable by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the fifth respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 application within three months.

M/S.Leader Properties and Estates Private Limited Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/8TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6586 of 2012 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S.LEADER PROPERTIES AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, DOOR NO.935, GKS TOWER, GROUND FLOOR ANNEX, EVR PERIYAR SALAI CHENNAI 600084, TAMIL NADU STATE REP.BY IT MANAGING DIRECTOR MUHAMMED ABDUL KARIM FAIZAL P.V M/S. ERRALAD HOTEL MAJOR ROAD VYTILA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE SRI.K.S.SUMEESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

CORPORATION OF KOCHI

¶11

CORPORATION OFFICE KOCHI-11 ERNAKULAM

¶12

THE SECRETARY

¶13

CORPORATION OF KOCHI CORPORATION OFFICE KOCHI-11

¶14

ERNAKULAM

¶15

THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER CORPORATION OF KOCHI CORPORATION OFFICE KOCHI-11

¶16

ERNAKULAM

¶17

THE REVENUE OFFICER

¶18

CORPORATION OF KOCHI CORPORATION OFFICE KOCHI-11

¶19

ERNAKULAM

¶20

STATE OF KERALA

¶21

REP.BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION

¶22

SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶23

BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN,SC,COCHIN CORPORATIO BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI

¶24

BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

W.P.(C).6586/12

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶29

EXT.P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.180/2010

¶30

EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 4.6.1997

¶31

EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OPF THE OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE BUILDING PERMIT.

¶32

EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DATED 11.11.2010 THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION HEREIN IN ORDER TO FORWARD THE SAME TO THE GOVERNMENT ON 29.10.2010

¶34

EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.11.2010

¶35

EXT.P7 TRUE PHOPTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.11.2010

¶36

EXT.P8 TO P8(J) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.8.2011 FOR BUILDING NO.UA/1096 C,C1,C2,D,D1,D2,E,E1,E2,F1

¶37

EXT.P9 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.09.2011

¶38

EXT.P10 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.1.2012

¶39

EXT.P11 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.1.2012.

¶40

/true copy/

¶41

P.A. To Judge

¶42

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶43

W.P.(C).6586/2012

¶44

.............................................. Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2012

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the fifth respondent.

¶47

There are two issues in this writ petition. First issue is in relation to Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for regularization of a construction made. Second issue is in relation to the legality of Ext.P8 series whereby property tax has been demanded.

¶48

Insofar as the first issue namely, Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for regularization of a construction is concerned, it is submitted that Smt.Geetha Janardhanan had obtained Ext.P2 permit from the first respondent. On the expiry of the validity of Ext.P2, by Ext.P3, validity period of the permit has extended upto 1.6.2009. However, the building was completed subsequently. Therefore, on

¶49

W.P.(C).6586/12

¶50

¶51

29.10.10, petitioner, who subsequently purchased the building from the transferee of Smt.Geetha Janardhanan as per Ext.P1, submitted Ext.P5 application for regularization of the construction. According to the petitioner, this application was processed by the Corporation and forwarded to the fifth respondent and that it is pending consideration before the said respondent. In this background the first prayer sought by the petitioner is to direct the fifth respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P5 on an expeditious basis.

¶52

As already noticed, Ext.P5 is the application made. It is also stated by the petitioner that on submission of Ext.P5, by Ext.P6 they were asked to remit the fee for regularization and that the fee was also remitted by Ext.P7. In view of these facts and also taking note of the case of the petitioner that the application is now pending before the fifth respondent, I direct the fifth respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

W.P.(C).6586/12

¶54

¶55

The second issue is regarding the challenge against Ext.P8 series of demands issued by the Corporation for payment of property tax. Ext.P8 series show that the assessment was made in the name of M/s. Bensy & Company, who, according to the petitioner, was the architect of the project in question. From Ext.P9, it is seen that the amount demanded by Ext.P8 series has been paid by the assessee, M/s. Bensy & Company. According to the Corporation, for the arrears that were due, a subsequent demand evidenced by Ext.R1(d) was issued to M/s. Bensy & Company on 8.8.2011 demanding remittance of Rs.1,29,14,403/-. They also submit that on receipt of the said demand, M/s. Bensy & Company filed Ext.R1(e) objection and that by Ext.P11, petitioner was informed that to consider the objections, they should remit Rs.50 Lakhs demanded as per Ext.R1(d).

¶56

From the above facts it is obvious that although Ext.P11 communication was addressed to the petitioner, the assessment as per Exts.P8 and R1(d) are in the name of M/s. Bensy & Company who is not a petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, it is for the assessee to agitate their

¶57

W.P.(C).6586/12

¶58

¶59

grievance against the aforesaid assessments and to that extent, petitioner cannot maintain a challenge against Exts.P8 and R1(d).

¶60

In that view of the matter, taking note of the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I leave open the grievance of the petitioner against Exts.P8 and R1(d) to be agitated in appropriate proceedings.

¶61

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶62

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶63

mrcs

¶64

/true copy/ PA To Judge

M/S.Leader Properties and Estates Private Limited v. Corporation of Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Leader Properties and Estates Private Limited v. Corporation of Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sebastian Joseph Vs the Authorised Officer

Kollam Jilla Kallu Chethu Madya V.T.U. Vs State of Kerala

Jannaathunisa Vs the Kollangode Grama Panchayath

Thrissur Corpn.Contractors Association Vs State of Kerala

R.Thyagarajan Vs Karakulam Grama Panchayath

T.Shaji and Another Vs the District Collector and Another