Kerala High Court
Jumaila Beevi vs Corporation Of Kollam on 21 May, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
WA NO. 1700 OF 2023 :1: 2025:KER:34765
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2025 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1947
WA NO. 1700 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.08.2023 IN WP(C) NO.39273 OF
2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 JUMAILA BEEVI
AGED 43 YEARS
SANU MANZIL, KIZHAKKE KARANAZHIKAM, MADANA NADA,
VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691010
2 PRAVEEN KUMAR C.L
AGED 45 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANANDESWARA MOTORS PVT. LTD.,
THATTAMALA, THATTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691020
BY ADV V.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 CORPORATION OF KOLLAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE,
KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
2 THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
BY ADV SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM), SC
SMT.NITHYA V.D
WA NO. 1700 OF 2023 :2: 2025:KER:34765
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.05.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1700 OF 2023 :3: 2025:KER:34765
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioners in WP(C).No.39273 of 2015, are the appellants
before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.08.2023 of a learned Single
Judge in the Writ Petition.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are
as follows:
The 1st appellant is the owner of 14 Ares of land in Sy.No.4500A/1
(Re.Sy.No.351/9-2) of Eravipuram Village, Kollam. In the said property, the
2nd appellant constructed a shed having an area of 739 Sq.Mts for running a
business with an approved plan and licence from the respondent Corporation.
As per the lease agreement entered into between the parties, the Corporation
taxes and electricity charges in respect of the shed were to be honoured by the
2nd appellant. The immediate cause of action for approaching the writ court
was the service of Ext.P12 order by the Corporation, demanding property tax
for the assessment years 2012-13, and 2013-14, in respect of the shed
constructed by the 2nd appellant. It would appear that, against the initial
assessment to property tax completed in respect of the building for the
assessment year 2012-13 the appellants were assessed to an amount of
Rs.1,70,902/- per annum towards property tax. It is not in dispute that the said
amount was paid by the appellants under protest, and thereafter, they
preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. For the assessment
year 2013-14, the appellants were again assessed to property tax at the same
figure of Rs.1,70,902/- per annum. In an appeal preferred by them before the
First Appellate Authority, however, the First Appellate Authority relied on a
WA NO. 1700 OF 2023 :4: 2025:KER:34765
Government order dated 27.04.2015, which envisaged an enhancement of
property tax with effect from 01.04.2013, and directed that the property tax to
which the appellants would be liable would be in an amount of Rs.89,419/- per
annum.
3. As far as the appellants were concerned, the Government order
dated 27.04.2015 (with effect from 01.04.2013) resulted in a revisiting of the
assessment done in respect of the buildings in question and effectively
reduced the property tax payable in respect of the building. While the said
reduction of tax ought to have enured to the benefit of the appellants even in
respect of the assessment year 2012-13, for reasons best known to the
Assessing Authority, in Ext.P12 order, the benefit of the reduced rate of tax
was confined only to the assessment year 2013-14 and not to the assessment
year 2012-13. This resulted in an anomalous situation where the appellants
had to pay property tax at the rate of Rs.1,70,902/- per annum for the
assessment year 2012-2013 whereas they were liable to pay, and paid,
property tax at the rate of Rs.89,419/- per annum for the assessment year
2013-14 and subsequent years, on the same property. It is impugning Ext.P12
order that brought about the said anomaly, and Ext.P15 demand notice that
raised exorbitant demands on the appellants, that they approached this Court
through the Writ Petition aforementioned.
4. The learned Single Judge, who considered the Writ Petition found
that in asmuch as the appellants had been charged a lesser rate with effect
from 2013-14, there was no cause for grievance as far as the appellants were
concerned and further, since the Government Order dated 27.04.2015 (with
effect from 01.04.2013) had not been assailed by the appellants, the
WA NO. 1700 OF 2023 :5: 2025:KER:34765
appellants could not be seen as aggrieved by the said Government Order. The
Writ Petition was therefore dismissed.
5. Before us, it is the submission of Sri.V.Varghese, the learned
counsel for the appellants, that the learned Single Judge erred in assuming
that the appellants were in fact aggrieved by the terms of the Government
Order dated 27.04.2015. He would submit that as a matter of fact, the
Government order conferred a benefit on the appellants and it was because of
the terms of the said Government Order that the First Appellate Authority
chose to reduce the property tax payable in respect of the building put up by
the appellants for the assessment year 2013-14. It is pointed out that when
the Government Order in question proposed an enhancement of tax, the
Corporation could not have demanded a higher tax for the immediate
preceding year, namely, 2012-13, from the appellants. We have also heard
Smt.Nithya V.D, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Corporation.
6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find force in the
contention of the learned counsel for the apepllants that, consequent to the
revision effected with effect from 01.04.2013, the appelalnts could not have
been put in a position where, consequent to an enhancement of property tax
that was envisaged by the revision order, they ended up paying lower tax for
the future period, but a higher rate of property tax for the immediate
proceeding year, prior to the revision. In our view, the finding in Ext.P12
order that the benefit of the reduction of tax would not enure for the
assessment year 2012-13 is a patent mistake and illegal, and liable to be set
aside.
WA NO. 1700 OF 2023 :6: 2025:KER:34765
7. We also note that the appellants had paid an amount of
Rs.1,70,902/- towards property tax during the assessment year 2012-13, when
the actual amount that was payable for the whole year as per Ext.P12 order
would have been only Rs.89,419/-. The appellants would, therefore, be
entitled to a refund of Rs. 81,483/-, the differential tax paid by them for the
assessment year 2012-13, (Rs.1,70,902/- - Rs.89,419/- = Rs.81,483/-). Since
we have found that the amount of Rs.89,419/- per annum is the property tax
payable for the assessment year 2012-13, we are of the view that instead of
refunding the said differential amount (Rs.81,483/-) to the appellants at this
stage, the respondent Corporation may adjust the said amount towards future
dues of property tax in respect of the same building belonging to the
appellants.
The Writ appeal is, therefore, allowed by setting aside the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, allowing the Writ Petition by
quashing Exts.P12 and P15 to the extent indicated above, and by finalising the
property tax liability of the appellants for the assessment year 2012-13 and
2013-14 in accordance with the findings in this judgment.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
mns
