[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
Perinthalamanna Municipality vs Mohammed Musthafa T on 9 July, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.5561 OF 2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
ABDUL KAREEM,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.(LATE) MOIDEEN,CHATTIPPARA, CHATTIPPARA HOUSE,
BIG BAZAR,PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679322
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1102 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 2 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1102 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.24090 OF 2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
SADIQALI
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.MOITHEEN, KALATHINKAL HOUSE,
KADANNAMANNU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679324
BY SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 3 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1120 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.39649 OF 2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
ABOOBACKER PADIPPURA,
AGED 85 YEARS
S/O.LATE MOIDEENKUTTI, PATIPPURA HOUSE, CALICUT ROAD,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 4 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1123 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.3146 OF 2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
ABDUL RAHIMAN,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.ALI AHMEDKUTTY MASTER, THONNAM THODY HOUSE,
MANATHUMANGALAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679322
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 5 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1129 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.1243 OF 2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
BASHEERUDHEEN.T.T,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.SAIDALI MUSLIYAR THONNAMTHODI, MANATHUMANGALAM,
PERINTHALMANNA.P.O, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 6 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1148 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.39679 OF 2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS:
1 MOHAMMED BASHEER P.P,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.HSSAINAR, PUTHENPEEDIKAKKAL HOSUE, VILAYUR P.O.,
KARINGANAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679309
2 NASEEMA ASSAINAR,
AGED 45 YEARS
D/O.HASAINAR, PUTHENPEEDIKAKKAL HOSUE, VILAYUR P.O.,
KARINGANAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679309
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 7 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1150 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.7624 OF 2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED ALI,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.LATE HASSANKUTTY HAJI, POOTHAMKODAN HOUSE,
THAZHEKODE P.O., PERINTHALMANNA VIA, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 8 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1161 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.4762 OF 2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
LAILA,
AGED 55 YEARS
D/O.K.P MOHAMMED, ALIKKAL HOUSE, MANATHUMANGALAM,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 9 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1176 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.4287 OF 2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PERITHALMANNA.P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
JANARDHANAN.K,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAN.K,'SOPANAM', NEAR PUTHUR TEMPLE, PATTAMBI
ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 10 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1177 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.4525 OF 2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA.P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
RAMESH.M.GOPALAN,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.(LATE) M.GOPALAN, RAM NIVAS, PATTAMBI ROAD,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 11 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1183 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.41720 OF 2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS:
1 M. ABDUL AZEEZ,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. MOIDU HAJI, MELETHIL HOUSE, PATHAIKKARA POST,
PERINTHALMANNA VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
2 ABDUL LATHEEF,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.KUNJAHAMMED, EDATHODIKAKKASSERY, MOORKKANAD P.O.,
PIN - 679338
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 12 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1313 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.7062 OF 2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA.P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
VAKAYIL HAMSA,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.(LATE) MOIDEEN HAJI, VAKAYIL HOUSE, CHERUKARA.P.O,
ELAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679340
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 13 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1319 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.38530 OF 2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALAMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O.,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA T.,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O LATE MUHAMMED MUSLIYAR, THARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.
MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676507
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 14 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1320 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.9351 OF 2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
PIN - 679322.
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED @ KUNHAMMED,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.AHMEDKUNHI, DUBAI PADI, PONNIAKURSSI, PACHEERI
HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679322
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 15 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1360 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.25329 OF 2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PERINTHALMANNA P.O.,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
KUNHIMUHAMMED M.P,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.THAHIRKUTTY, MANGADAM PARAMBATH HOUSE, MANALAYA
P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679357
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 16 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1363 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.39168 OF 2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
E.K MOHAMMED,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIMOIDU HAJI, ERAKKADAVATH HOUSE,
MUZHANNAMMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679357
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 17 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1364 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.34805 OF 2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
C.T.MOIDEEN,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.HAMZA, CHETTIARTHODI HOUSE, VALLAPUZHA P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 18 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
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 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025/18TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1373 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.33974 OF 2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
PIN - 679322
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
1 ABOOBACKER MELECHERUKUNNATH,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.SAID MOHAMMED, MELECHERUKUNNATH HOUSE,
CHERUKARA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679340
2 BASHEER VENKITTA,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.LATE MOHAMMED MASTER, VENKITTA HOUSE,
VATTALOOR P.O., MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676507
3 HAMSA THAYYILKURIKKAL,
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.MOYTHUPPA, MANATHMANGALAM, PERINTHALMANNA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 19 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
4 V.C. MOHAMMAD ALI,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.LATE V.C.KUNHAYAMUTTY,VELLAMCHOLA HOUSE, P.O.,
PERINTHALMANNA, KAKKOOTH, MANATHMANGALAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 20 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
[W.A.Nos.1090/2024, 1102/2024, 1120/2024, 1123/2024,
1129/2024, 1148/2024, 1150/2024, 1161/2024, 1176/2024,
1177/2024, 1183/2024, 1313/2024, 1319/2024, 1320/2024,
1360/2024, 1363/2024, 1364/2024 & 1373/2024]
Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The Perinthalmanna Municipality is the appellant before us in all
these writ appeals that impugn a common judgment dated 01.03.2024
of a learned Single Judge in writ petitions preferred by persons
aggrieved by the demand notices for arrears of property tax served on
them by the Municipality.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ appeals are
as follows:
The challenge in the writ petitions against the demand for arrears
of property tax by the appellant Municipality was essentially twofold,
namely, (i) that the demand notices were issued without assessing the
basic property tax and annual property tax as per the mandatory
procedure prescribed under Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act
read with the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and
Surcharge) Rules, 2011 [hereinafter referred to as the “2011 Rules”]
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 21 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/242025:KER:50196
and in particular, Rules 4 and 10 of the 2011 Rules; and (ii) that the
demand notices were barred by limitation in view of the provisions of
Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act.
3. The learned Single Judge, who considered the writ petitions,
found as follows at paragraphs 16 to 20 of the impugned judgment:
“16. A reading of the Rules 2011 would show that, it is a complete
code as far as the property tax assessment is concerned. The main point
raised in these writ petitions is that the procedure prescribed in the Rules
2011 is not followed before issuing the demand notices. Most of the cases
are filed against the assessment made by Perinthalmanna Municipality.
Therefore, I will consider the counter and statement filed in W.P.(C).
No.24090/2018 by the Perinthalmanna Municipality. In the counter
affidavit filed by the Municipality, it is stated that, the demand notices are
issued, strictly following the Rules 2011. It is submitted that for the
purpose of levying the property tax, the Government of Kerala issued
Ext.R1(a) notification fixing the maximum limit of rates of basic property
tax applicable to one square metre plinth area of those categories
mentioned in Section 233(2) of Act 1994. Ext.R1(a) is the Malayalam
translation of the Rules 2011. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by
the respondent in W.P.(C).No.24090/2018 that in terms of the statutory
provisions, the Municipality is to fix the rate of basic tax applicable to the
area of Municipality and notification classifying the area into different
zones.
17. Ext.R1(b) deals about the guideline for collecting the property
tax. Even though, it is stated in paragraph 6 of the counter that the
Municipality has issued the notification in terms of Rule 10, the same is
not seen produced in the counter. On the other hand, the petitioners
seriously dispute the publication of such a notification as per Rule 10.
Ext.R1(b) is not a notification issued under Rule 10 of the Rules 2011. It is
true that in paragraph 8 of the counter, it is stated that, the contention of
the petitioners that Rule 10 has not been followed by the Municipality is
incorrect. But, that notification is not produced. This Court directed the
Municipality to produce the notification, if any, issued under the relevant
provisions of the Rules 2011.
18. Accordingly, a statement was filed by the counsel on
20.02.2024. Two notifications are produced along with the statement as
Exts.R1(d) and R1(e). Ext.R1(d) is admittedly a notification issued under
Rule 4(2) of the Rules 2011. Ext.R1(e) is the notification specifying the
final rates of basic property tax fixed by the Municipality, the dates of its
commencement and the period during which it will be in force. It is not
clear in the counter affidavit or in the statement that whether the
notification under Rule 4(2) is published in the notice board of the office
of the Municipality or any newspapers having wide circulation in the area
of Municipality. Similarly, it is not clear whether Ext.R1(e) is published in
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 22 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/242025:KER:50196
two newspapers having circulation in the area of Municipality as per Rule
4(4) of Rule 2011. Therefore, there is no evidence before this Court to
conclude that Rules 4(2) and 4(4) are complied in letter and spirit based
on Ext.R1(d) and R1(e).
19. After the notification under Rules 4(2) and 4(4) of the Rules
2011, as per Rule 10, a publication of public notice as to assessment of
property tax is necessary. It is the duty of the Secretary to publish a public
notice containing the details helpful to the owners of building to assess
the basic property tax and annual property tax of the building by
themselves. In public notice published under Rule 10(1), the Secretary
shall demand all owners of the building to submit a tax return containing
all particulars as to the building before the Secretary or the Officer
authorised by the Secretary within 30 days of the publication of notice. It
is also the bounden duty of the Secretary to give necessary publicity to the
public notice and in summary shall be published at least in two
newspapers having circulation in the area of Municipality. The public
notice published by the Secretary shall be in Form-1 appended to these
Rules. Even though in the counter filed in W.P.(C). No.24090/2018, it is
vaguely stated that Rule 10 is complied, notice in Form-1 is not seen
produced. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that Perinthalmanna
Municipality has not followed the procedure prescribed in the Rules 2011
and hence the Municipality has to be directed to redo the formalities as
per the Rules 2011 and thereafter assess the tax in accordance with law.
The petitioners who are challenging the assessment of Perinthalmanna
Municipality can raise their contentions at the appropriate stage in
accordance with law.
20. In W.P.(C).No.3190/2019, the assessment of building tax of
Malappuram Municipality is challenged. In the counter filed by
Malappuram Municipality in W.P.(C). No.3190/2019, Ext.R1(a) is
produced. Ext.R1(a) is only a notification under Rule 4(2) of the Rules
2011. Then Ext.R1(c) is produced and that also is the final notification
under Rule 4(4) of the Rules 2011. It is stated in the affidavit that
subsequently to assess the tax by the assessors themselves, Form-2 was
made available and notice was published informing the said fact on
04.12.2013. But there is no case to Malappuram Municipality that there is
any publication as mandated in Rule 10(2) demanding all owners of the
building to submit a tax return containing all particulars as to the building
before the Secretary or the officer authorized by the Secretary in Form-1.
Similar is the situation as far as Alapuzha Municipality is concerned.”
The writ petitions were thereafter disposed with the following
directions:
“1. The impugned demand notices in these writ petitions are quashed.
2. The respondent Municipalities shall comply the mandatory
provisions in the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess
and Surcharge) Rules, 2011, which is discussed in detail in this
judgment, within an outer limit of six months from the date of
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 23 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/242025:KER:50196
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
3. On completion of the assessment, the Municipalities can issue
assessment notice or the demand for any differential tax, if any,
from the petitioners, in accordance with law.
4. We have heard Sri.P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing
Counsel for the appellant Municipality as also Sri.Peeyus A. Kottam, the
learned counsel for the respondents in all these writ appeals.
5. The arguments of Sri.P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing
Counsel for the appellant Municipality are essentially against the
finding of the learned Single Judge that there was no compliance with
the mandatory provisions under the 2011 Rules. He points out that in
the light of the documents produced before the learned Single Judge,
that clearly showed compliance with the procedure contemplated under
Rule 4(2) of the 2011 Rules, the appellant Municipality had to be seen
as having substantially complied with the requirements under Section
233 of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules. It is his further
contention that, at any rate, Rule 16(4) of the 2011 Rules provides for
an alternate remedy by way of appeal to the Municipal Council, against
any assessment made contrary to the criteria specified under the Act
and Rules, and hence, the writ petitions were not maintainable in the
first instance. It is also his contention that, since what the writ
petitioners were denied through the non-compliance with the procedure
under Rule 10, was only the opportunity to file a voluntary return of
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 24 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/242025:KER:50196
property tax, affording them a fresh opportunity now would have
sufficed to regularize the irregularity in issuing the demand notices for
the arrears of property tax; that there was therefore no necessity to set
aside the assessments and demand notices and the direction to the
appellant to re-do the assessments afresh after complying with the
procedure contemplated under the 2011 Rules. He points out in this
connection that the petitioners had not specifically challenged the
assessment orders in their writ petitions.
6. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri.Peeyus A. Kottam, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners, that the
findings of the learned Single Judge require no modification. It is his
contention that, in as much as there was no compliance with the
statutory procedure prescribed for bringing into effect the levy of
property tax itself, the assessment orders passed, and the demand
notices served on them, were non est and void.
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone
through the pleadings on record and the statutory provisions and
precedents relied upon by the learned counsel.
8. Before we embark upon an analysis of the submissions made
on either side, we might observe that the idea of a tax being a
compulsory exaction of money by the State from a citizen is one that
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 25 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/242025:KER:50196
has instilled a sense of disgruntlement in the citizenry whenever they
are called upon to pay a tax. This resentment was best captured in the
words of Benjamin Franklin who famously, and with more than a tinge
of exasperation, observed that “there are only two certainties in life –
death and taxes”. However, there has been a paradigm shift in the
perception of a levy and collection of tax over the years, and in modern
times it has become firmly established that taxes are “necessary evils”
in the sense that they are required to be paid and collected for the
effective discharge of those governmental functions that are designed to
advance the welfare of the people. We believe, this changed perception
came about largely on account of the safeguards guaranteed against
arbitrary taxation through the shift in our constitutional jurisprudence
that now tests State action for legitimacy by asking not merely whether
the State had the power to act but further, as to whether such State
action was justified under the circumstances? The said shift from a
‘culture of authority’ to a ‘culture of justification’ has been responsible
for the advance of the Rule of Law in our country.
9. Axiomatically, while the levy and collection of a tax must be
shown as satisfying the mandate of Article 265 that there can be no levy
or collection of tax save by ‘authority’ of law, the law that authorizes
such levy and collection must also satisfy the ‘justification’ criteria of
being certain, fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary. The said concepts are
inbuilt in Part III of the Indian Constitution and must inform the
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 26 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/242025:KER:50196
imposition of a tax at each stage of its levy and collection as mandated
by Article 265 thereof.
10. In a recent judgment dated 30.06.2025 in W.A.No.986 of
2025 and connected cases, that disposed a batch of writ appeals filed by
the Thrissur Corporation, we had found that the requirement of
publication of rates of property tax during the various states of their
finalization, as envisaged under Rule 4 was mandatory and not merely
directory. We had, in that connection, also referred to the decision of
the Supreme Court in in Messrs Govind Saran Ganga Saran v.
Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors. – [1985 (Supp) SCC 205] where
the Court emphasized on the salient features that clothe a levy of tax
with legal validity, in the following words:
“The components which enter into the concept of a tax are well known. The
first is the character of the imposition known by its nature which prescribes
the taxable event attracting the levy, the second is a clear indication of the
person on whom the levy is imposed and who is obliged to pay the tax, the
third is the rate at which the tax is imposed, and the fourth is the measure or
value to which the rate will be applied for computing the tax liability. If those
components are not clearly and definitely ascertainable, it is difficult to say
that the levy exists in point of law. Any uncertainty or vagueness in the
legislative scheme defining any of those components of the levy will be fatal
to its validity.”
11. The procedures contemplated under Section 233 of the
Kerala Municipality Act, read with Rules 4 and 10 of the 2011 Rules, are
designed to confer legal validity on the levy that comes into existence
thereafter. The requirement of following the statutory procedure has to
be seen as flowing from Article 265 read with Article 243-X of the
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 27 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/242025:KER:50196
Constitution and therefore mandatory in nature. In these cases, there
was admittedly no compliance with the provisions of Rule 4(4) of the
2011 Rules, in that, a notification specifying the final rates of basic
property tax fixed by the counsel was not published in the manner
contemplated therein. The only publication that was produced by the
appellants was of the notice manifesting the intention to finalize the
draft rates of property tax through a resolution of the Municipal Council
as required under Rule 4(2) of the 2011 Rules. Rule 4 of the 2011 Rules
reads as follows:
“4. Fixing of rates of basic property tax.- (1) The Municipality
shall, by resolution, fix the rates of basic property tax in whole number to be
levied in the area of the Municipality to a square meter of plinth area for each
category of building, mentioned below in accordance with the use, if the
Government have fixed their sub categories, for it also, subject to the minimum
and maximum limits of basic tax rates fixed by the Government as per sub-
section (2) of section 233, for each category of building, namely,:
(i) used for residential purpose;
(ii) used for industrial purpose;
(iii) used for schools or hospitals;
(iv) used for amusement parks, mobile telephone tower;
(v) used for commercial purpose;
(vi) used for other purposes;
(vii) Any other category of buildings as notified by the
Government:
(2) The Council shall, initially consider preliminary proposals to fix
rates of basic property tax or revision of existing rates and before passing a
resolution for fixing rates finally, notice as to the intention of that resolution
shall be published in the notice board of the office of the municipality and in a
newspaper having wide circulation in the area of the Municipality and in the
places directed by the Council and publicity shall be given to the notice
through pamphlets, noticeboards etc. and a period of not less than thirty days
shall be allowed to submit objections and if any objections are received within
the time stipulated that shall be considered by the council.
(3) The rates of basic property tax for all buildings of same category
or its subcategories, as the case may be, shall be the same throughout the area
of the Municipality in accordance with use.
(4) The Secretary shall publish a notification specifying the final rates
of basic property tax fixed by the Council and the date of its commencement
and the period during which it will be in force, the notification shall be
published in the noticeboard of the office of Municipality and in two
newspapers having circulation in the area of the Municipality. Publicity shall be
given to the said notification through pamphlets, ward level noticeboards etc.
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 28 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/242025:KER:50196
(5) The rates of basic property tax fixed by the Council shall have
effect for a period of five years from the date of its commencement and the
Council shall revise the rates to be in force for the next each five year period by
making addition at the rate of twenty five percentage of the existing rates as
per sub-section (4) of section 233 in due course and those shall be published as
per sub-rule (4).
Similarly, there was admittedly no compliance with the procedure under
Rule 10 of the 2011 Rules that requires the publication of a notice
calling for returns from the owners of buildings. Rule 10 of the 2011
Rules reads as follows:
“10. Publication of public notice as to assessment of property
tax:- (1) After fixing and publishing rates of the basic property tax,
classification of zones and classification of roads applicable to the area of
Municipality, as provided in rules 4, 7 and 8 respectively by the Council, as per
sub-section (10) of section 33, the secretary shall publish a public notice
containing the details helpful to the owners of building to assess the basic
property tax and annual property tax of the building by themselves.
(2 In public notice, the secretary shall demand all owners of the
building to submit a tax return containing all particulars as to the building
before the Secretary or the officer authorised by the Secretary within thirty
days of the publication of notice. The Secretary shall given necessary publicity
to the public notice and its summary shall be published at least in two
newspapers having circulation in the area of Municipality.
(3) The public notice published by the Secretary shall be in Form-1
appended to these rules. (emphasis supplied)Form 1 appended to the 2011 Rules reads as follows:
Form 1
[See rule 10 (3)]
………………………………………………. Municipality/CorporationNumber ……………………….. Date: …………………………………..
PUBLIC NOTICE DEMANDING SUBMISSION OF PROPERTY TAX RETURN
The basic property tax rate with effect from …………….. fixed by the council for each
category of building for the purpose of conducting assessment/reassessment of property tax
of buildings and details of classification of municipal area into zones and details of
classification of roads in the municipal area has been published by the Municipality in dates
…………………. respectively as per the Kerala Municipality (Property tax, Service cess and
Surcharge) Rules, 2011.
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 29 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
As per rule 4(2) of the above said rules, amount arrived by multiplying the plinth
area of a building with rate of basic property tax applicable to such category of building
(rounded to its next higher whole number) shall be the basic property tax of the building and
amount (in whole number) after effecting deductions and additions on it as directed in the
tables under rule 6 shall be the annual property tax of the building. Deductions in all items
shall not be allowable in excess of 75 percentage of basic property tax. Moreover, when the
annual property tax of buildings for residential purpose and commercial purpose are
assessed initially on the basis of plinth area, and if there is addition of more than 60
percentage and 150 percentage respectively in the property tax, such addition may be
limited to 60 percentage and 150 percentage respectively. Moreover, an addition of
minimum 25 percentage shall be made in the existing annual property tax due to the
assessment of property tax of existing buildings for residential purpose or commercial
purpose. Provided, after conducting the last assessment or reassessment of property tax, if
any addition or structural improvement or any change in use, if any, has been made to the
building, it shall not be entitled to the above said benefit. In case of a multistoreyed building
used for commercial purpose or office purpose, when the property tax is fixed initially on the
basis of the plinth area, deduction in the annual property tax at the rate of 5 percentage of
the annual property tax reckoned for the first floor above the ground floor, for the second
floor – 10 percentage of the annual property tax reckoned, for the third floor – 15 percentage
of the annual property tax reckoned, for the fourth floor – 20 percentage of the annual
property tax reckoned, for the fifth floor – 25 percentage of the annual property tax
reckoned, for each floor above the sixth floor – 25 percentage of the annual property tax
reckoned shall be permitted.
Every owners of the building in a municipal area shall make a self assessment of the
annual property tax of the building in their ownership and submit within 30 days of
publication of this notice, i.e. within ……. date, a property tax return in Form No.2 of the
above said rules to the municipal secretary. Form of property tax return shall available free
of cost from the said office. Guidelines to fill up the return is appended with the form. In the
case of residential buildings having plinth area up to 30 square meter for own residence of
those who are below poverty line are entitled to exemption of property tax and owners of the
building shall submit property tax return in Form 2a within the above said time limit.
For more instructions as to the assessment of property tax, concerned sections in
the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and concerned rules in the Kerala Municipality (Property
tax, Service cess, and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 shall also be seen.
Secretary
12. It is clear from the above statutory provisions that the
procedure for assessment of property tax can begin only with the filing
of a return pursuant to the publication of a notice under Rule 10, which
contains details helpful to the owners of buildings to assess the basic
property tax and annual property tax of the buildings by themselves. It
is only if the owners of the buildings fail to file their returns within 30
days of that notice that the Municipality can proceed to unilaterally
collect the details necessary for an assessment and complete the
assessment against the owners of buildings. In other words, without
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 30 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/242025:KER:50196
complying with the procedural formalities required to bring the rate of
tax and the measure of tax to the knowledge of the prospective
assessees, the levy of property tax cannot be seen as having come into
existence vis-a-vis those assessees. It is therefore that we concur with
the findings of the learned Single Judge that set aside the demand
notices served on the respondents. In the absence of a valid levy, there
could not have been an assessment to tax, or a collection of the said tax,
since the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution requires both the
levy and collection of tax to be backed by the authority of law.
13. Since there was no effective levy of tax in the instant cases,
the contention of the appellant Municipality that the respondents had
an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal against the
assessment orders, pales into insignificance. The appellate remedy
being against assessments irregularly completed, and not against non-
est assessments, cannot be seen as an efficacious alternate remedy on
the facts and circumstances arising in these appeals. It is also to be
noted that the challenge in the writ petitions was against the action of
the appellant Municipality in issuing demand notices for arrears of
property tax, without following the statutorily mandated procedure for
imposing and collecting the tax. The said challenge essentially called
into question those actions of the Municipality that were in breach of its
statutory obligations and hence the writ petitions were rightly found to
be maintainable by the learned Single Judge.
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 31 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/24
2025:KER:50196
The upshot of the above discussion is that we see no reason to
interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment. The Writ Appeals therefore fail, and are accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
prp/
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 32 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/242025:KER:50196
APPENDIX OF W.A.NO.1148/2024
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: NIL.
RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES:
Annexure R1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.489/1
Annexure R1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.486/B
Annexure R1(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.491
Annexure R1(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.497/1
Annexure R1(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.497/3
Annexure R1(e) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.497/4
Annexure R1(f) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.497/5
Annexure R1(g) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.497/7
Annexure R1(h) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.497/8
Annexure R1(i) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.497/9
Annexure R1(j) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.497/10
Annexure R1(k) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 33 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/242025:KER:50196
THE RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.493/1
Annexure R1(l) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.493/2
Annexure R1(m) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.493/5
Annexure R1(n) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1793
Annexure R1(o) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1794
Annexure R1(p) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1795
Annexure R1(q) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1796
Annexure R1(r) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1797
Annexure R1(s) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1798
Annexure R1(t) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1799
Annexure R1(u) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1800
Annexure R1(v) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1801
Annexure R1(w) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1802
Annexure R1(x) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1803
Annexure R1(y) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 13.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1804
Annexure R1(z) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
W.A.Nos.1090, 1102, 1120,
1123, 1129, 1148, 1150,
1161, 1176, 1177, 1183, :: 34 ::
1313, 1319, 1320, 1360,
1363, 1364 & 1373/242025:KER:50196
THE RESPONDENT DATED 13.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1806
Annexure R1(z1) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 13.02.2025 IN THE
BUILDING NO.1807//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
[ad_2]
Source link