IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 10869 OF 2014 PETITIONER/S:

KAPICO KERALA RESORTS PVT.LTD

5TH LEVEL, AMRITA TRADE TOWERS, S.A.RTOAD, PALLIMUKKU JUNCTION, COCHIN 682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ROY M.MATHEW BY ADVS.

SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

2 THE PANAVALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT PANAVALLY PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688

566,REPRESENTED BY ITRS SECRETARY OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SR.

R1 - SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY,GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 - SRI.MANU GOVIND,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T C. R.

This writ petition is filed by a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, challenging Exts. P4 and P6 demand notices issued by the Secretary of the Panavally Grama Panchayat, the 2^nd respondent, directing the petitioner to pay property tax of Rs. 35,70,446/- and Rs. 12,66,745/- to 36 buildings bearing different numbers and 54 buildings bearing different numbers, respectively, for different periods.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

3. Petitioner has secured Ext. P1 building permit on 10.10.2007 for construction of Standard Villas, Deluxe Villas, Two Bedroom Villas, Resident Villa and other buildings.

4. Admittedly, certain public interest litigations were filed before this Court, alleging inter alia that the construction of the resort was illegal and against the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 and the plan prepared by the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority.

5. Finally the writ petitions were allowed holding that the constructions made by the petitioner are violative of the Coastal Zone Management Plan and Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991, reported in Ratheesh v. State of Kerala [2013 (3) KLT 840]. The said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kapico Kerala Resorts Private Limited v.

State of Kerala and Others [2020 (3) SCC 18]

6. Be that as it may, the case projected by the petitioner is that the construction of the Villas have been completed and the Secretary of the Panchayat had allotted building numbers to all the buildings; the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs. 18,30,334/- as property tax to the Panchayat on 31.01.2012 for the half year period of 2011-12 evident from Ext. P2 tax receipt dated 31.01.2012. It is also submitted that petitioner has remitted building tax for the first half of 2012-13 evident from Ext. P2(a) tax receipt dated 19.12.2012.

7. It seems the Panchayat has filed S. T. No. 1070 of 2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II, Cherthala under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy and Appeal) Rules, 1996 alleging that the petitioner has failed to remit the building tax for the period 2012-13 evident from Ext. P3 complaint.

8. Anyhow Ext. P4 demand is dated 09.04.2013 and even though an appeal was preferred before the Standing Committee for Finance of the 2^nd respondent Panchayat, it was rejected as per Ext. P5 order dated 06.01.2014.

9. Later the petitioner is served with Ext. P6 demand dated

14.03.2014 for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.07.2013.

10. The paramount contention advanced in the writ petition is that the Panchayat is not entitled to raise any demand against the building ordered to be demolished as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as specified above.

11. That apart, it is submitted that there is no default or latches on the part of the petitioner in applying for