Renjitjha.G.Nair, Vs Municipal Council

¶1

2025:KER:28851

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25259 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RENJITJHA.G.NAIR,
AGED 39 YEARS
WIFE OF VENU.T., TC.6/1375,
REVATHY, PTP NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695038.

¶8

BY ADVS.
P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
T.S.HARIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE,CORPORATION BUILDING, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶11

2THE SECRETARY,
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶12

3STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

BY ADVS.
N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
SHRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, TVPM CORPORATION

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶15

ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶16

FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019

¶18

-:2:-

¶19

2025:KER:28851

¶20

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶21

----------------------------------------W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019

¶22

------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2025

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 -:3:-

¶27

2025:KER:28851

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

A statement has been filed by the 1^st 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

¶31

W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019 -:4:-

¶32

2025:KER:28851

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019

¶39

2025:KER:28851

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

The writ petition therefore fails, and it is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶45

Jka/03.04.25.

¶46

W.P.(C). No.25259 of 2019

¶47

-:6:-

¶48

2025:KER:28851

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25259/2019

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

EXHIBIT P1TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BUILDING
PERMIT ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 30.6.2006.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 29.3.2017.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 17.6.2017.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED
17.6.2017.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 19.11.2008.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, DATED
24.1.2019.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
FIRST RESPONDENT, DATED 18.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P8TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT
ORDER, S.O.(MS).NO.144/15 L&SD. DATED
27.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶52

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶53

`Exhibit -R2(a)`	`A TRUE COPY` `PUBLISHED IN` `24.12.2013`	`OF` `KER`	`THE DRAFT NOTIFICATION` `ALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED`
`Exhibit -R2(b)`	`A TRUE COPY` `DATED 02.06.20`	`OF` `14`	`THE FINAL NOTIFICATION`
`Exhibit -R2(c)`	`A TRUE COPY O` `THE PETITIONER`	`F TH` `DA`	`E FORM NO.2 SUBMITTED BY` `TED 05.05.2017`
`Exhibit -R2(d)`	`A TRUE COPY` `14.07.2023 BY`	`OF` `THE`	`THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `PETITIONER`

Renjitjha.G.Nair, v. Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjitjha.G.Nair, v. Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.R.Shaji Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Exos It Management Private Limited Vs the Assistant Enforcement Officer

Mercy Andrew Vs Chavara Grama Panchayath

Abdul Rahim Tharayil, Vs the Superintendent

C.P. Roy Vs State of Kerala

St. John’S Convent Vs the District Collector