2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3005
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
ABAD BUILDERS PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
MARADU MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) 28722/2022
K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER (SR.), T.K.SREEKALA, VINEETH KOMALACHANDRAN, KALLIYANI KRISHNA B., T.R.RAJAN
Recreational areas and caretaker’s rooms in residential complexes cannot be assessed for property tax under commercial tariff as they are mandated by law for residential use.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 - Section 233 - Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 - Rule 50 - Surcharge Rules, 2011 - Property tax assessment - Petitioners challenged the Municipality's demand for property tax on recreational area and caretaker’s room at commercial tariff - Court held that these areas, being statutory requirements in a residential complex, cannot be assessed under commercial tariff but must be treated as part of residential occupancy. (Paras 17, 22)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Court found that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar judicial review when issues involve statutory interpretation. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, a builder and an Apartment Owners Association, contested the Municipality's demand for property tax on a recreational block and caretaker’s room, asserting these areas are for residential use as mandated by law.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the recreational block and caretaker’s room are integral to the residential occupancy and should be taxed accordingly, quashing the Municipality's demands.
Issues: The main issues were whether the recreational area and caretaker’s room could be assessed at commercial rates and the maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that statutory provisions mandate the inclusion of recreational spaces in residential complexes, thus these cannot be classified for commercial taxation.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is a builder and the second petitioner is the Apartment Owners Association. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Exts.P3, P4, P6 and P9 and also seeking a declaration that the recreation area and caretaker’s room which is statutorily provided in a residential apartment complex cannot be assessed in commercial tariff for levy of Municipal property tax.
2. The 1st petitioner constructed an apartment complex on their land having an extent of 30.41 ares comprised in Sy.Nos.274/16, 33, 14-2, 11-2-2, 11-3, 14-3 of Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk in the name and style “Abad Golden Oak” on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit obtained from the 1st respondent Municipality on 31.03.2018. The 1st petitioner completed the construction of the apartment complex as per the building permit which includes 52 apartments including a recreation block and a caretaker’s room. After completion of the construction, Ext.P2 occupancy certificate was issued and door numbers were assigned to different apartments including the recreational area and the caretaker’s room.
3. The 1st respondent Municipality raised a demand for Municipal Property Tax in respect of the recreational block as well as the caretaker’s room in commercial tariff and issued Exts.P3 and P4 demands. The 1st petitioner remitted property tax as against Exts.P3 and P4 for the 1st and 2nd half of 2019-20 under protest. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that as per Rule 50 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KMBR, 1999’) the 1st petitioner is bound to provide a recreation space of suitable size in a residential apartment having more than 12 dwelling units, and that the recreational space shall not be less than 6% of the total floor area of all the units taken together, and a minimum 35% of such recreational space shall be provided outside the building on the ground itself, and the remaining recreational space may be provided either inside a building or outside or both. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to Rules 4 and 5 of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Surcharge Rules, 2011’) and contended that going by Rule 5 it is clear that the residential apartments are to be levied property tax under the residential tariff alone, and there is no legal warrant to separate the recreation area and caretaker’s room to levy property tax under commercial tariff. It is further submitted that as mandated in Rule 50 of KMBR, 1999, the 1st petitioner has provided a recreational block having 406.69 sq.mtrs adjacent to the apartment complex and a caretaker’s room on the ground floor, i.e. having an area of 18.68 sq.mtrs. 4. The 1st petitioner challenged the said demand of assessing the property tax of the area in commercial tariff and sought review of the said demand by submitting Ext.P5 representation. The Finance Standing Committee of the 1st respondent Municipality considered the said request and by Ext.P6 decided to confirm the levy of tax at commercial tariff in respect of the recreational block as well as the caretaker’s room. Thereupon, the 1st petitioner filed Ext.P7 representation before the 4th respondent Government, and Ext.P8 report was submitted by the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Municipality before the 4th respondent. On the basis of Ext.P8 report the 4th respondent sustained the stand taken by the 1st respondent Municipality and rejected the request of the 1st petitioner as per Ext.P9 order.
5. Petitioners submit that the stand taken in the impugned orders is clearly against the statutory provisions contained in the KMBR Rules, 1999 and Surcharge Rules, 2011 in as much as the same is in violation of Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1994), which is a charging provision to levy property tax on building, Rule 30 and Rule 50 of the KMBR Rules 1999. The