JANAKAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. ELOOR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, UDHOYAGAMANDAL P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the daughters of late Janardhana Panicker, who was the owner of two buildings within the jurisdiction of the respondent Municipality. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that late Janardhana Panicker owned an extent of 28.72 Ares of property in which, he had constructed two buildings. The first building, which initially housed a hotel, was granted a building number V/902 by the respondent Municipality. Thereafter, the said Janardhana Panicker extended the building and to the extended portion of the building, the respondent Municipality allotted another number namely V/902 B. It is stated that in the subsequent year, the said building number was split into two and given the numbers V/902 A2 and V/902 A3. As regards the second building, this was a two storied building, which comprised of 18 rooms spread over the two floors. The ground floor contains 9 rooms and each of those rooms was allotted a separate number by the respondent Municipality, namely V/903 to V/911. As regards the 9 rooms on the first floor of the building, they were all grouped together for the purposes of numbering and allotted the number V/903 A. In the registered Will executed by late Janardhana Panicker on 30.07.2010, the two buildings referred above, and the land on which they are situated, was bequeathed to the petitioners herein, who are the daughters of the said late Janardhana Panicker. Consequent to the death of Janardhana Panicker in 2013, the petitioners got the aforementioned properties mutated in their names, and thereafter, sought a change of ownership in the files of the respondent Municipality. In the writ petition, the petitioners have produced as Ext.P4, a document that shows that the respondent Municipality had accepted the change of ownership in respect of buildings bearing numbers V/902 to 911 in favour of the petitioners, and the property tax receipts produced by the petitioners clearly indicate that property tax was also received from the petitioners in respect of the said buildings, save in respect of building numbers V/903 A, V/902 A2 and V/902 A3. Enquires made by the petitioners with the respondent Municipality revealed that, the refusal to change the ownership in respect of the aforesaid three buildings in favour of the petitioners was on account of the fact that the registered Will of late Janardhana Panicker did not specifically mention these building numbers. Incidentally, the last communication sent to the petitioners (Ext.P14 dated 03.11.2017, produced along with I.A.No.18676 of 2017) indicates that the respondent Municipality refused to acknowledge the change in ownership of the two buildings in their entirety including what was already accepted by them in Ext.P4 communication issued to the petitioners. It is under these circumstances, that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent Municipality to change the ownership of the building numbered as V/902 to 911 including V/902 A2, V/902 A3, V/902 B (now renumbered as V/902 A2 and V/902 A3) and V/903A, in favour of the petitioners in all the official records kept by the respondent Municipality and to receive the building tax in respect of the said building from the petitioners in the writ petition.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent Municipality, wherein it is stated that, it was on account of an ambiguity that was noticed in the Will of late Janardhana Panicker that the petitioners were asked to produce a certificate from the Village Officer, Eloor, that the buildings in question were situated in the land comprised in the Will of late Janardhana Panicker.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality.