Rajendra Prasad vs Kulasekharapuram Grama ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8140 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
        FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 4296 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:

            RAJENDRA PRASAD
            AGED 69 YEARS, 'SURYA', KOOTAMPALLY MADATHIL,
            P.O.KARAZHAMA,KOLLAM, KERALA - 690 526,
            REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.RAMDAS.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
            SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
            SRI.P.GOPINATH
            SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
            SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
            SRI.KURYAN THOMAS

RESPONDENT/S:

    1       KULASEKHARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
            ADINADU NORTH P.O - 690 542, KOLLAM
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

    2       THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR
            SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
            SRI.P.MOHANDAS ERNAKULAM
            SRI.N.MANU THAMPI
            DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SR.
            SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
            R2- SRI.K.P.HARISH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.4296 of 2015
                                    2


                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the

following relief:

"(i) declare that Exhibit-P1 to P1(c) demand notices are illegal and ultra vires under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011."

2. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that the

Secretary of the Kulasekharapuram Grama Panchayat, without

complying mandates contained in section 203(3) of the Kerala

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and rule 4(2) of the Kerala Panchayat

Raj (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011,

revised the property tax and issued Exhibits P1, P1(a), P1(b)

and P1(c) demand notices dated 20.10.2014 under rule 14(1)

of the Rules 2011.

3. The case projected by the petitioner is that the Grama

Panchayat has failed to comply with the norms and mandates

laid down in rule 4 of the Rules 2011 and therefore, the

demand notices issued are violative of the fundamental W.P.(C)No.4296 of 2015

principles and accordingly arbitrary and illegal, liable to be

interfered with by this court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

4. A counter affidavit is filed by the Kulasekharapuram

Grama Panchayat (respondent No.1), wherein it is contended

as follows:

"4. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 series of demand notices issued by the Panchayat claiming the enhanced tax. It is humbly submitted that invoking the power under Section 200, 203, 208 read with 254, Government of Kerala framed the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules 2011. Rule 4 of the said rules prescribes the manner in which the tax is to be revised.

5. On the basis of the above rules the Panchayat committee at its meeting held on 27-06-2011 as per decision No. 3 decided to revise the property tax with effect from 1-4-2011 for a period of five years. The committee also decided to publish the proposed revision and also to invite suggestions and objections from the public.

6. Accordingly, notice No. K3-6660/11 dated 11-07-

2011 was published in the Malayala Manorama daily and the notice was also affixed in all public places where the public have direct access. Certain objections were received by the Panchayat. After considering the objections the Panchayat committee at its meeting held W.P.(C)No.4296 of 2015

on 23-08-2011 decided to revise the property tax. The final decision was published as per notice No. K3- 8626/2011 dated 23-08-2011. The said final order was published in the Malayala Manorama and Deshabhimani dailies and also notices were affixed at all conspicuous places including Anganvady, other public offices etc.

7. As provided under Rule 10 the owners were given public notices to submit the tax return by wide publicity. That was also published in dailies as well as public places. Even then the petitioner did not submit the return. The revised rate fixed by the Panchayat is less than the rate fixed in the neighbouring Panchayats and actually it is the lowest rate in the district. The property tax was revised on the basis of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy and Appeal) Rules 1996. Further the Government order G.O. (P) No. 88/2013 dated 13-03-2013 was also considered while making the revision of tax.

8. Since the above Government order is dated 13-03- 2013 Government made the revision of property tax with effect from 1-4-2013. Since the revision proceedings could not be completed before 1-4-2013, the tax for the year 2013-2014 was also collected along with the revised rate. That is how the demand notices are issued for the year 2014-2015 including the balance amount of the revision for the year 2013-2014 and also the revised tax for the year 2014-2015."

5. Therefore, it is submitted that the revision is made by

the Grama Panchayat strictly following the Rules and the

revision made in the year 2011. That apart, it is pointed out W.P.(C)No.4296 of 2015

that the final decision was published in two malayalam dailies

and also in all conspicuous places by affixing the copy of the

order. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner's building

is used for other industrial purposes and therefore, the tax

admissible for other industrial purposes are claimed from the

building. Therefore, the submission of the Panchayat is that

no interference is required to the demand notices raised by

the Panchayat.

6. I have heard the learned counsel Smt.Pooja Menon for

the petitioner, the learned counsel Sri.P.Mohandas for the 1 st

respondent Grama Panchayat and the learned Senior

Government Pleader Sri.K.P.Harish for the Local Self

Government Department and perused the pleadings and the

material on record.

7. The contentions raised by the petitioner at the first

blush seem to be attractive. However, the counter affidavit

filed by the Government shows that demands were raised by

the Grama Panchayat in accordance with the revision made in

the year 2011 and it was in accordance with the Government

Order dated 13.03.2013, Government made the revision of W.P.(C)No.4296 of 2015

the property tax with effect from 01.04.2013 and the

Panchayat has demanded the tax from the petitioner after the

said date. Therefore, it cannot be said that after the 2011

revision, the Panchayat has again made a revision in the year

2013-2014. In that view of the matter I do not think the

grounds raised by the petitioner by relying upon the

provisions of the Rules 2011 can be sustained under law.

Therefore, I do not think the petitioner is entitled to get the

relief as is sought for in the writ petition.

8. In fact the issue raised in this writ petition was

considered by this court in W.P.(C)No.22102 of 2015 and has

rendered a judgment dated 03.12.2018 wherein all the

intrinsic aspects raised by the petitioner were considered and

found against the petitioner therein. However, learned

counsel for the petitioner at that point of time requested that

the right of the petitioner to raise objection to quantum in

the demand notices may be left open. After considering the

rival submissions I think it is only a fair submission made from

the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner and since it

is an innocuous relief, the writ petition can be disposed of W.P.(C)No.4296 of 2015

leaving open the said liberty of the writ petitioner to file

suitable representation before the Grama Panchayat.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of declining the

relief sought for in the writ petition, however, leaving open

the liberty of the petitioner to file suitable representation

before the Panchayat in respect of the quantum of amounts

contained in the demand notices. In the process, the

Panchayat shall take into account the amounts already

remitted by the petitioner and necessary adjustment shall be

given in terms of the payment.

Sd/-

Shaji P.Chaly Judge

vpv W.P.(C)No.4296 of 2015

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4296/2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.10.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION (BUILDING NO.111).

EXT.P-1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.10.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION (BUILDING NO.112).

EXT.P-1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.10.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION (BUILDING NO.113).

EXT.P-1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.10.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION (BUILDING NO.114).

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY TAX AND LIBRARY CESS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14, DATED 31.3.2014.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE KULASEKHARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 11.7.2011.

Exhibit R1 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 14.7.2011.

Exhibit R1 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.II TAKEN BY THE KULASEKHARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE ON 23.8.2011.

Exhibit R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE KULASEKHARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 23.8.2011.

Exhibit R1 (E) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 27.8.2011.

Exhibit R1 (F) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE PANCHAYATH IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 23.10.2011.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE