Tax assessment necessitates adherence to procedural norms and the valid permits as per local regulations.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition with respect to certain property in the jurisdiction of the respondent Panchayat, contending that though he has been permitted to remit tax till 2016, later tax is not accepted from him, as seen from Ext.P7 communication of the Panchayat, dated 29.04.2016, for want of a rent deed.

2. Sri.T.K.Ajith Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that there is no requirement for a rent deed, insofar as the property has been purchased by the petitioner and he has reconstructed the building during 2008, which was in existence. At the same time, Sri.K.Sudhin Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent Panchayat, would contend that the reconstruction after demolition was carried out by the petitioner, without obtaining a valid permit or licence. He would also add that there are certain violations with respect to the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms, as in existence during the period during which the petitioner claims to have carried out reconstruction, and hence, the Panchayat is perfectly justified in not accepting tax from the petitioner. It is also pointed out by him that the change of ownership with respect to the purchase of the property, as pointed out by the petitioner, has not been carried out by the petitioner.

3. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records. There are certain disputes with respect to the factual position. This Court notices that the petitioner has already submitted an application as evidenced by Ext.P8 to the 2^nd respondent herein, pointing out that the construction carried out by him and the requirement to accept tax with respect to the property. This Court also notices that, though as contended by Sri.Sudhin, there may be violation of CRZ norms, the petitioner will be entitled for the benefits on account of the subsequent changes in the CRZ norms, if any.

4. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies by pointing out the actual facts and figures before the 2^nd respondent Secretary, by filing an appropriate application. The petitioner to also obtain the necessary clearance with respect to the change in CRZ norms, if applicable, as regards him. The petitioner should also seek a regularisation of the unauthorised construction, on the basis of all the above, as expeditiously as possible. The respondent Panchayat to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and to extend all possible help to the petitioner for regularising any unauthorised construction, if legally permissible.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE Skk//26.05.2025 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.36265 OF 2017 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX DATED 22.6.17 ISSUED BY THE KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE OFFICER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FEE DATED 10.3.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED

4.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED

23.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED

23.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED

23.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED

23.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 4.10.12 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.3.2016 ADVANCE LICENSE FEE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 29.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION D