IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 9326 OF 2017 PETITIONERS:

1 JOY JOHN.P, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.JOHN P.J., RESIDING AT POOVAN (H), MUVATTUPUZHA-686

661.

2 ELSA JOY, AGED 54 YEARS W/O.JOY JOHN, RESIDING AT POOVAN (H), MUVATTUPUZHA

686661.

3 JOHN JOY, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.JOY JOHN, RESIDING AT POOVAN (H), MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.

4 JOSEPH JOY, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.JOHN P.J., RESIDING AT POOVAN (H), MUVATTUPUZHA-686

661.

BY ADV PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS:

1 MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-686 661.

2 FINANCE STANDING COMMITTEE, MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN-686 661.

BY ADVS.

SHRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY RAJAN T R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Exts.P3 to P6 demand notices issued for payment of property tax. It is the case of the petitioners that Exts.P3 to P6 demands are in respect of an area in the basement of the building used for the purpose of parking of cars. It is submitted that this area cannot be included in the plinth area for the purpose of determination of property tax as is evident from the reading of the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess anmd Surcharge) Rules, 2011 (the 2011 Rules).

2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Municipality submits that the contention taken by the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is submitted that Rule 3(3) of the 2011 Rules refer to a single car porch attached to a residential house and does not cover a situation were a basement area of a building is converted for use as a car porch. It is submitted that this is clear from the reading of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules. It is submitted that in the present case, the basement area which is being used for parking of cars is covered on all four sides and there is no rationale for excluding such area from the plinth area for determining the property tax.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Municipality, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules reads as follows:-

3. Property tax to be levied to each building-(1) The Secretary shall levy property tax as per section 233 and as per these rules for each building which has not been exempted from property tax as per section 235 of the Act.

(2) If more than one building is situated in the same property, if they are not constructed connecting each other, for the purpose of levying proeperty tax they shall be treated as separate buildings: Provided, latrine, firewood shed, cattle shed, cages for domestic animals or domestic birds, car shed, pump house situated in the same property as a building appurtenant there to or such other appurtenant building, even though separated from a building, shall not be treated as separate building and its plinth area shall not be included in the plinth area of the main building.

(3) If there is a car porch appurtenant to a building, its area shall not be included in the plinth area of the building and if there is a swimming pool, its area shall be included in the plinth area of the building.

(4) If different portions of the same building (including upper storeys) are owned by different persons, even though owned by single person, if separate building numbers are assigned to that portions of the building for proper reasons, property tax shall be levied to each one of those by considering each portion as separate buildings: Provided, if any portion of the building is set apart for common use, property tax of that portion shall be assessed by appending the plinth area of that portion in proportion with the plinth area of other portions.

(5) If dif