S K HAMZA HAJI Vs. PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get vacancy remission application allowed starting from the date of completion till the building is occupied, further to declare that respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to raise demand for building tax for the period 2011-12, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Necessary facts required for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner along with one S.K. Abbas Haji had constructed a multi-storied building within the limits of the 1st respondent Municipality, after securing permit, having 40 rooms altogether. The building was numbered as PMC XXI2695A to Z and XXI-2695 A1 to R1. Though the building was completed in 2010, the building was assigned with the number only on 208.2011. The 1st respondent issued notice of assessment for property tax on 208.2011, assigning building numbers to the entire construction of the petitioner, evident from Exts.P1, P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) series.

(3.) Immediately after assigning the building number, the 1st instalment of tax was paid on 24.08.2011 itself, evident from Exts.P2, P2(a) to P2(g) series. However, electrical connection was not sanctioned to the building, and therefore, the building could not be let out to any of the tenants or occupied by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, petitioner submitted a notice for vacancy remission on 28.02012 for the first six months after the assessment, as contemplated under Sec.239(3)(a) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. It is also the case of the petitioner that, thereafter, application was submitted in every six months for vacancy remission and respondent has issued receipts for the same, evident from Ext.P3, P3(a) to P3(e) series. That apart, it is submitted, the fact that the building is not occupied by anybody is well known to the 1st and 2nd respondents, as the same is just in front of the Municipal Office. Since the petitioner had submitted vacancy remission applications from time to time, the respondent did not demand him to pay the building tax.