Allowed

N.R. Gopalakrishnan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2023WP(C)/5050/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a property tax demand imposed on school buildings. Relying on a Government circular under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the Court quashed the demand declaring such educational buildings exempt from property tax.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The demand for property tax raised by the 2nd respondent is quashed.

N.R. Gopalakrishnan Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5050 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

N.R. GOPALAKRISHNAN PILLAI
S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, 75 YEARS,
MANAGER, SANKARAMANGALAM PUBLIC SCHOOL,
KAVIYOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA - 689 582.
BY ADVS.
SMT.S.SINDHU
SRI.S.SHARAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶10

2KAVIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
KAVIYOOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 689 582.
SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.
SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO
SRI.SAYED MURTHALA THANGAL-GP

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶12

07.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 5050 OF 2018

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2023

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

¶18

the learned Government Pleader that the building referred to in this case is a school building and that no property tax can be demanded in view of Ext.P7 circular dated 12.07.2004. It is submitted that Ext.P7 is a general order issued by the Government under Section 207(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

¶19

Having considered the contentions advanced and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and in view of the fact that there is no contention that the building is not an ICSE school building used for any educational purpose, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

¶20

This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The demand for property tax raised is quashed. It is made clear that the buildings

¶21

WP(C) NO. 5050 OF 2018

¶22

¶23

belonging to the petitioner will also be covered by the provisions of

¶24

Ext.P7 circular.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

NP

¶29

WP(C) NO. 5050 OF 2018

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5050/2018

¶32

`PETITIONER’S EXHIB` `EXHIBIT P1.`	`ITS` `A TRUE COPY OF` `DTD. 22/10/2003` `SCHOOL CERTIFIC`	`THE` `TO` `ATE`	`CERTIFICATE OF AFFILIATION` `THE COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN` `EXAMINATIONS.`
`EXHIBIT P2.`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `DTD. 17/9/1999` `GENERAL EDUCATI` `THIRUVANANTHAPU`	`THE` `FROM` `ON D` `RAM.`	`NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE` `THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,` `EPARTMENT,`
`EXHIBIT P3.`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `PERIOD 2013-201` `DTD. 08/11/2017`	`THE` `7, B` `ISS`	`DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE` `EARING BUILDING NO.282` `UED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3(A).`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `PERIOD 2013-201` `DTD. 08/11/2017`	`THE` `7, B` `ISS`	`DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE` `EARING BUILDING NO.290` `UED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3(B).`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `PERIOD 2013-201` `DTD. 08/11/2017`	`THE` `7, B` `ISS`	`DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE` `EARING BUILDING NO.291` `UED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3(C).`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `PERIOD 2013-201` `DTD. 08/11/2017`	`THE` `7, B` `ISS`	`DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE` `EARING BUILDING NO.292` `UED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P4.`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `SUBMITTED BY TH` `RESPONDENT.`	`THE` `E PE`	`PETITION DATED 20/1/2018` `TITIONER TO THE 2ND`
`EXHIBIT P5.`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `BY THE 2ND RESP`	`THE` `ONDE`	`REPLY DTD. 2/2/201 ISSUED` `NT TO THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P6.`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `OP NO.13153/200` `KERALA.`	`THE` `3 OF`	`JUDGMENT DTD. 17/9/2003 IN` `THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF`
`EXHIBIT P7.`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `12/7/2004 ISSUE`	`THE` `D BY`	`ORDER NO.2425/2004 DTD.` `GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.`
`EXHIBIT P8.`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 2/2/2018` `BY THE 2ND RESP`	`THE` `BEAR` `ONDE`	`REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE` `ING BUILDING NO.282 ISSUED` `NT.`
`EXHIBIT P8(A).`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 2/2/2018` `BY THE 2ND RESP`	`THE` `BEAR` `ONDE`	`REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE` `ING BUILDING NO.290 ISSUED` `NT.`
`EXHIBIT P8(B).`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 2/2/2018` `BY THE 2ND RESP`	`THE` `BEAR` `ONDE`	`REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE` `ING BUILDING NO.291 ISSUED` `NT.`
`EXHIBIT P8(C).`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 2/2/2018` `BY THE 2ND RESP`	`THE` `BEAR` `ONDE`	`REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE` `ING BUILDING NO.292 ISSUED` `NT.`

¶33

WP(C) NO. 5050 OF 2018

¶34

¶35

EXHIBIT P9.A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
5/2/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT.

¶36

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

N.R. Gopalakrishnan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.R. Gopalakrishnan Pillai v. State of Kerala

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

K.Sreedharan Namboothiri, Vs the District Collector

K. Lekshmy, Vs Smt. A.G Oleena

Varkey Madakampurath Vs the Secretary

Mariyam Rasheed Vs the District Collector

Reserve Bank of India Vs Meenakshi P.R

M/S K.H. Floorings Vs Sales Tax Inspector