Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945 WA NO. 358 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/1/2024 IN WP(C) NO.5805 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: S.R. ARAVINDAKSHA PRABHU AGED 59 YEARS SON OF RENGANATHA PRABHU, SWARGATH MADOM, NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM, N. PARAVUR-, PIN - 683513 BY ADVS. A.N.SANTHOSH G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 NORTH PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY N. PARAVUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 683513 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 SC-ANOOP.V.NAIR,SR.GP-V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, ALONG WITH WA NO.374/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945 WA NO. 374 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/1/2024 IN WP(C) NO.11937 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 MRS. SUDHARMA AGED 51 YEARS WIFE OF JAVAHAR, IRINGATHURUTHIL HOUSE, MUNAMBAM PALLIPORT, KUZHUPPILLI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682501 2 MRS. RADHIKA AGED 49 YEARS WIFE OF JAYARAM, IRINGATHURUTHIL HOUSE, MUNAMBAM PALLIPORT, KUZHUPPILLI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 682501 BY ADVS. A.N.SANTHOSH G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTSS: 1 NORTH PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY N. PARAVUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 683513 STANDING COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE NORTH PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, N. PARAVUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 683513 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 OTHER PRESENT: THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 OTHER PRESENT: SC-ANOOP.V.NAIR,SR.GP-V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, ALONG WITH WA NO.358/2024 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. The common issue involved in both these appeals is whether a canopy constructed by the appellants at their petrol pumps could be treated as a building for the purpose of assessment of property tax under Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act (for short, 'the Act').
2. The appellants are running fuel stations. They constructed a canopy with sheets over the dispensing unit of the civil stations, which, according to them, are to protect the dispensing units. The 1st respondent assessed the said canopy to property tax and made a demand. The appellants challenged the assessment and demand of property tax by filing writ petitions.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions vide the impugned judgment. It is challenging the judgment that the appellants are before us.
3. We have heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.Anoop V.Nair, the learned Standing Counsel for the North Paravur Municipality and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader Section 233 of the Act empowers the Council of the Municipality to levy property tax on every building, including the land appurtenant thereto situated within the area of the respective Municipality. The “building” as defined under Section 2(2) of the Act includes a house, outhouse, stable, latrine, shed, hut, bunk and any other structure whether of masonry, wood, brick, mud, metal or any other material whatsoever. Even according to the appellants, the canopy with roofing over the fuel dispensing machines was constructed on pillars. It has been constructed for the beneficial enjoyment of the fuel station and it has also been assigned a building number. It therefore qualifies the definition of “building” as defined under the Act. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that it is liable to be assessed to property tax. We find no merit in the writ appeals. Accordingly, they are dismissed.
Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp
