JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a multi-storied building situated within the territorial limits of the 1^st respondent. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 demand notice, requiring the petitioner to pay the property tax, for the period from 2017-18 to 2024-25. One of the specific grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the demand raised by the 1^st respondent is hit by the period of limitation contemplated under Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act . Apart from the above, it is also contended that, the assessment was made without taking into account Rule 95 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2011.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent, and the learned Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent.

3. I find that the issue raised by the petitioner with regard to the limitation is upheld by this Court in Gateway Hotels Ekm v. Kochi Municipal Corporation [2025 (3) KHC 245] , wherein, it was held that the 1^st respondent Corporation cannot recover the property tax for a period of three years preceding to the date of demand. In such circumstances, Ext.P1 canno