K. M. SUBAIDABI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are connected and therefore I am disposing these writ petitions by a common judgment. I will treat W.P.(C). No.24090 of 2018 as the leading case and I will narrate the facts in this case. Similar contentions are raised in the other writ petitions also.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.(C). No.24090/2018 along with four others purchased building consisting of room bearing Nos.4/433, 4/434, 4/437, 4/438, 4/439, 4/440, 4/441, 4/442, 4/443, 4/444, 4/445, 4/446, 4/447, 4/448, 4/450, 4/451, 4/453, 4/454, 4/455, 4/456, 4/457, 4/458, 4/459, 4/460 (old Nos.20/621-2 to 20/621-28) of Perinthalmanna Municipality. The petitioner, his wife and relatives named Ibrahim, Ameer and Jamseena purchased this building from Beeran and others as per sale deed bearing Registration Nos.437/2016, 436/2016, 435/2016, 434/2016 and 433/2016 of Perinthalmanna SRO. For the years 2016-17 and 2017-18, the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.1,72,000.00 towards building tax and till 2018 he has remitted the same without any default is the submission. When the petitioner approached the Municipality for remitting the building tax for the year 2018-19, the Secretary, Perinthalmanna Municipality served a notice and thereby demanded the petitioner to pay enhanced property tax which is allegedly fixed as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 (for short 'Rules 2011'). The enhanced property tax demanded for these rooms is narrated in page Nos.2 and 3 of the writ petition. The notice dtd. 9/7/2018 and 11/7/2018 were issued in the name of Beeran, who was the predecessor of the petitioner in interest from whom the petitioner purchased this building. The notice demanding tax was fixed as per the provisions of the Rules 2011 for the building and Exts.P1 to P24 are the demand notices issued by the Secretary, Perinthalmanna Municipality. The contents in Exts.P1 to P24 are common except figures. After the receipt of these demand notices, the petitioner submitted Ext.P26 representation before the respondent dtd. 15/7/2018 stating that this demand order may not be implemented. It is submitted that the petitioner is conducting a lodge named Khaleej Residency in this building and he was issued licence bearing No.239/17 for running the lodge. When renewal application was submitted, the Municipality insisted that, for renewing the licence, the petitioner has to pay the enhanced property tax. It is submitted that, in spite of Ext.P26 representation, the Municipality is not prepared to recall Exts.P1 to P24 and is still insisting to pay the enhanced property tax and because of non-payment of the enhanced property tax, the Municipality is not renewing the licence, is the submission. It is the contention of the petitioner that Exts.P1 to P24 demand notices are issued without assessing the basic property tax and annual property tax as per the procedures prescribed under the Rules 2011 and Sec. 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for short 'Act 1994'). It is submitted that, for non compliance of procedural requirements, a batch of writ petitions were filed before this Court and this Court as per Ext.P27 judgment allowed the writ petitions and was pleased to set aside the demand notices. According to the petitioner, since the mandatory procedural requirements are not complied with for fixing the enhanced property tax, this Court was pleased to set aside the demand made by the Municipality and directed the Municipality to comply with the requirements under the Rules 2011. The procedures in Rules 4, 6, 9 and 10 are not followed before issuing the demand notices is the submission of the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(3.) Similar is the contentions in almost all other writ petitions, and therefore, I am not repeating the averments in those writ petitions separately.