The legality of construction and its impact on property tax liability.

ORDER :

N. Nagaresh, J.

1. The petitioner, who is owner of a commercial building in Aluva West Village, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext. P13.

2. The petitioner constructed a building in the property in his possession in Aluva West Village. The 1st respondent-Municipality assigned Door No. XVII/506(4). The petitioner has been paying property tax in respect of the building. The petitioner is conducting a showroom for Honda Two-wheelers in the building. With a view to protect the building from the vagaries of weather, the petitioner provided trusswork over the roof of the first floor. The petitioner intimated to the 2nd respondent in advance about his intention to provide trusswork over the roof of the existing building. The petitioner was thereupon issued with a building permit. The petitioner made the roof work as per the approved plan.

3. In 2015 when the petitioner submitted an application before the 2nd respondent to issue building permits to construct two additional floors, the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P7 show-cause notice alleging that the petitioner has illegally constructed trusswork over the roof of the first floor. The petitioner was informed that if his reply is not satisfactory, the Municipality will be confirming Ext. P7 order and steps will be taken to demolish the alleged illegal construction. The petitioner submitted Ext. P8 reply pointing out that the trusswork was done after obtaining Ext. P3 permit and the basement was in existence from the time of original construction of the building and property tax is being remitted in respect of the same.

4. However, the petitioner was served with Ext. P9 Demand Notice calling upon him to remit property tax. The 2nd respondent apparently categorised the trusswork portion of the roof of the building as an unauthorised construction. Since Ext. P9 was issued without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 18116/2016. This Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Municipality to treat Ext. P9 Demand Notice as show-cause notice and hear the objections of the petitioner. The petitioner filed Ext. P11 objections. The petitioner was called for hearing by the 2nd respondent on 26.02.2018. However, the 2nd respondent, without considering the objections of the petitioner, confirmed Ext. P9 demand as per Ext. P13 order. The petitioner challenges Exts. P9 and P13 orders on various grounds.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 filed detailed counter affidavit denying the averments in the requisition. Respondents 1 and 2 contended that after obtaining building number for the original building, in the year 2010, the petitioner sought building permit for construction of weather roofing using sheet over the terrace portion of the building and the Municipality granted Ext. P3 building permit. According to the respondents, the construction of the roof was made violating the approved plan. The petitioner has covered all the sides of the terrace portion with brick and iron grill, and the roof with the trusswork and sheet roofing.

6. The petitioner is using the covered area for other purposes. Respondents 1 and 2 also alleged that the petitioner has converted the basement floor permitted for parking into an unauthorised garage. It is further alleged that the petitioner has also made unauthorised construction in the open yard including an open lift. Ext. P13 has been passed after hearing the petitioner. There is no illegality in Ext. P13 order, contended the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learner counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

8. Ext. P1 would show that the two storied building was constructed after obtaining building permit. Ext. P2 would show that the petitioner has been paying property tax in respect of the building. Ext. P3 is the building permit issued by respondents 1 and 2 for construction of sheet roofing covering terrace area. Ext. P4 would show that the pla