Allowed

Sajitha Muhammed Ali v. the Secretary, Kodungalloor Municipality

Kerala HC11 Nov 2022WP(C)/7047/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged property tax enhancement orders via writ petition. Considering the pending dispute and demolition claim, the Court quashed the notifications and granted a hearing opportunity to the Municipality.

What did the court decide?

Ext. P9 and P11 set aside. Reconsideration to be done by 1st respondent after hearing petitioners within three months.

Sajitha Muhammed Ali Vs the Secretary, Kodungalloor… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7047 OF 2011

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SAJITHA MUHAMMED ALI W/O. MUHAMMED ALI, 50/395-B, MANIMALA ROAD JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY P.O.

¶8

2 SABIRA HABEEB, W/O. MUHAMMED HABEEBULLA, PUTHENCHALIL, RAJEEV NAGAR ROAD,, UNICHIRA, EDAPPALLY. BY ADVS. SHAHUL HAMEED MOOPPAN T.A.NIYAS

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, KODUNGALLOOR MUNICIPALITY KODUNGALLOOR P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT- 680664.

¶11

2 KODUNGALLOOR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 680664.

¶12

3 BABU K.M., S/O. HASSAN, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, KOTHAPARAMBU P.O., KODUNGALLOOR -680668. BY ADVS. BABU KARUKAPADATH K.A.NOUSHAD

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

-2-

¶15

W.P.(C). No. 7047 of 2011

¶16

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

W.P.(C) No. 7047 of 2011

¶18

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2022

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶21

“(i) Call for the records pertaining to the passing of Exhibit P9 order including special notice No. 676 (ML 2/10) stated in Exhibit P9 order.

¶22

(ii) issue writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit: P9 order.

¶23

(iii) issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 and 2 not to recover property tax with respect to building No XIII/619/B as claimed in Exhibit P9 by any mode of recovery contemplated under Kerala Municipalities Act and Rules.

¶24

(iv) Such other writ, order and interim order deem fit to grant in the nature and circumstances of the case.” (sic)

¶25

-3-

¶26

W.P.(C). No. 7047 of 2011

¶27

The petitioners are the co-owners of Building No.XIII/619/B of Kodungalloor Municipality, along with their brother-respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioners that building No.XIII/619/B is a semi permanent building constructed as per approved plan and permit issued under Section 387 of Kerala Municipalities Act. It is also the case of the petitioners that the property tax was assessed at the rate of Rs.985/- per half year and same was paid from 2006-2007 first half year, as evident by Ext.P5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 3^rd respondent, brother of petitioners who was in enimical terms with petitioners, joined hands with respondents 1 and 2 and attempted to demolish building. Same was interfered by this court by way of Ext.P2 judgment in W.P. (C).No.30266 of 2006 and Ext.P4 status-quo order is issued in W.P.(C).No.25325/2008. Subsequently, W.P.(C).No.25325/2008 is allowed setting aside the impugned order in that writ petition.

¶28

W.P.(C). No. 7047 of 2011

¶29

-4-

¶30

Subsequently, Ext.P9 order was received by the petitioners intimating about re assessment of property tax from Rs. 985/(half yearly) to Rs.25,200/- (yearly) with retrospective effect from 2007-2008. It is the case of the petitioners that no notice is given to the petitioners before issuing Ext.P9 order, even though it is mentioned in Ext.P9 that a special notice was issued to the petitioners by registered post. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Municipality is enhancing the tax to an extent of 1300% by passing the impugned orders and that also without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Ext.P11 is the notice issued to the tenant of the building. Aggrieved by Exts.P9 and P11, this writ petition is filed.

¶31

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. There is no appearance for the 3^rd respondent.

¶32

-5-

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 7047 of 2011

¶34

It is the definite case of the petitioners that before issuing Ext.P9, no prior notice is received by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the property tax is enhanced to 1300% from Rs.985/- to Rs.25,200/- as per Ext.P9 order. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the building is already demolished and the same is not in existence and a statutory notice informing the same to the Municipality is also issued.

¶35

The counsel for the Municipality submitted that a counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2. The counsel submitted that before Ext.P9, the Special Notice was issued to the petitioners and there is documents to show the same. The counsel for the Municipality submitted that the enhancement of property tax is in accordance to law. It is also submitted that the building was assessed and there is additional construction and that is why the property tax is enhanced.

¶36

-6-

¶37

W.P.(C). No. 7047 of 2011

¶38

This court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Municipality. A perusal of Ext.P9 would show that there was prior notice to the petitioners before assessing the tax. But, the definite case of the petitioners is that there is no prior notice. This writ petition is pending before this Court from 2011 onwards. This Court stayed all further proceedings consequent to Exbts.P9 and P11 and the interim order is in force even now. In such circumstances, I think one more opportunity can be given to the petitioners to agitate their contentions before the Municipality. The Municipality will also consider the fact that the building is already demolished by the petitioners and the same is intimated to the Municipality.

¶39

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

¶40

Exts.P9 and P11 are set aside.

¶41

-7-

¶42

W.P.(C). No. 7047 of 2011

¶43

The 1^st respondent will reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

At the time of hearing, the 1^st respondent will serve all the documents relied on by the Municipality including the special notice mentioned in Ext.P9.

¶45

sd/-

¶46

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE

das

-8-

W.P.(C). No. 7047 of 2011

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7047/2011

¶52

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED 23.3` `RESPONDENT`	`OF PROCEEDINGS NO.R1-382/06` `.2006 ISSUED BY 1ST` `.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY` `NO.30266/2`	`OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)` `006 DATED 24.1.2007.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED BY`	`OF NOTICE DATED 7.8.2008` `1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY` `NO.25325/2`	`OF ORDER IN WP(C)` `008 DATED 25.8.2008.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY` `3.11.2006`	`OF TAX RECEIPT NO.NIL DATED` `ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY` `FORWARDING` `FEE.`	`OF NOTICE DATED 11.3.2009` `PROPERTY TAX AND LICENCE`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY` `17.2.2010`	`OF TAX RECEIPT NO.1118 DATED` `ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY` `FORWARDING` `FEE.`	`OF NOTICE DATED 19.2.2011` `PROPERTY TAX AND LICENCE`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED 16.2` `RESPONDENT`	`OF NOTICE NO.R1-3930/09` `.2011 ISSUED BY 1ST` `.`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED TO`	`OF REPLY DATED 28.2.2011` `P9 NOTICE.`
`Exhibit`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED 28.2` `RESPONDENT`	`OF NOTICE NO.R1-3930/-9` `.2011 ISSUED BY 1ST` `.`

Sajitha Muhammed Ali v. the Secretary, Kodungalloor Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajitha Muhammed Ali v. the Secretary, Kodungalloor Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Prameela

Prameela Vs Alexander

K.Sivaprasad Vs State of Kerala

Vally Alias v.N.Rajalakshmi Vs State of Kerala,Repr;by Chief Secretary

Seeja P.M. Vs the Manager, Kadambur North a.U.P.School

K.C.Bharati Vs the Government of Kerala