The limitation period for property tax recovery is three years, overriding general provisions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2026 Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 dated 10.01.2020, wherein tax was demanded from 30.09.2016 onwards.

2. Petitioners submit that the issue is covered in their favour, by the judgment of this Court in the Gateway Hotels v. Cochin Municipal Corporation and Others [2025 (3) KHC 245]

wherein paragraphs 52 to 55 reads as follows:-

“52. A perusal of the above decisions will reveal that despite the provisions of the Limitation Act stipulating a period of limitation of 12 years for recovery of the amounts due, when it becomes a charge on the property, the period of limitation stipulated in the special statute will have to be given preference and the same will prevail over the general period prescribed under the Limitation Act. As mentioned earlier, neither section 538B nor section 237 of the Act extends the period of limitation for recovery of amounts due to the Municipality. The creation of a charge on the property as well as the recovery of arrears of tax as an arrear of public revenue would not extend the limitation period prescribed under section 539 of the Act and the Municipalities are governed by the said provision. Viewed in the above perspective, the Municipality could have recovered only amounts as arrears for a period of three years.

53. Apart from the above, even the Government had understood section 539 of the Act as restraining recovery of arrears beyond three years, as is noted from the Government Order dated 06.03.2019. Though the interpretation of the Government cannot be regarded as the law of the land, in view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the view is legally tenable.

54. Thus, the recovery under the impugned demand notices cannot be initiated for arrears beyond three years from the date of demand. As the period of limitation is only a measure of restriction on recovering amounts due, all those owners who have paid the tax voluntarily or otherwise are not entitled for refund of the same. However, in respect of those persons who have not yet paid the amount, they need to pay only the arrears from a period that accrued three years prior to the demand notices issued to them.

Conclusion

55. In the result:

(1) The basic property tax fixation in respect of Kochi Corporation needs no interference.

(2) The owners of buildings can be made liable to pay the annual property tax demanded in the respective demand notices at the revised rates from a period three years prior to the date of demand, after deducting the property tax already paid. (

3) No amount under the respective demand notices at the revised rates can be recovered for the periods till three years prior to the date of demand and the owners of buildings in Kochi Corporation cannot be put to any prejudice for non-payment of property tax for those periods.

(4) The demand of property tax as per the respective demand notices in all these cases from 2016-17 till three years prior to the date of demand notices shall not be enforced, if not paid voluntarily”

3. In the light of the above, it is declared that the decision of this Court in Gateway Hotel’s case cited supra will govern the case of the petitioners also. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside with a consequential direction to the respondent Corporation to reconsider the matter in the light of the decision in Gateway Hotel’s case cited supra with notice to the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-