IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TUESDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 23471 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S:

CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF CHARITY, DE-PAUL PROVINCIAL HOUSE, POTTA.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN:680722, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, SR.MOLLY.A BY ADVS.

LINDONS C.DAVIS E.U.DHANYA RAJITH DAVIS N.S.SHAMILA CHINJU P. JOYIES RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE ALUVA, MINI CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION RD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, PIN - 683101

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, ANGAMALY, MANJAPRA RD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572 OTHER PRESENT:

Smt. Reshmitha R Chandran, Sr.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a Congregation of the Sisters of Charity.

The dispute raised in this writ petition pertains to the Ext.P5 order passed by the Government, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner seeking exemption for the building of the Congregation of Charity, from the payment of building tax as contemplated under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The reason based on which Ext.P5 order passed was that, the majority of the persons who were staying in the building in question, were persons employed in various establishments as Nurses, Teachers etc. Therefore, it was found that, as the same was not predominantly used for religious purposes, the exemption as contemplated under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 cannot be extended to the petitioner. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances.

2. Today when the matter came up for consideration, it was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that, the issue regarding the exemption for religious purposes, as contemplated under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 was considered by the Honourable Court in a similar case in Government of Kerala and Another Vs. Mother Superior, Adoration Convent [2021 (5) SCC 602]. After elaborately considering the said provisions, it was observed in paragraph 15 of the said decision as follows:

“15. A reading of the provision would show that the object for exempting buildings which are used principally for religious, charitable or educational purposes would be for core religious, charitable or educational activity as well as purposes directly connected with religious activity. One example will suffice to show the difference between a purpose that is directly connected with religious or educational activity and a purpose which is only indirectly connected with such activity. Take a case where, unlike the facts in Civil Appeal No. 202 of 2012, nuns are not residing in a building next to a convent so that they may walk over to the convent for religious instruction. Take a case where the neighbouring building to the convent is let out on rent to any member of the public, and the rent is then utilised only for core religious activity. Can it be said that the letting out at market rent would be connected with religious activity because the rental that is received is ploughed back only into religious activity? Letting out a building for a commercial purpose would lose any rational connection with religious activity. The indirect connection with religious activity being the profits which are ploughed back into religious activity would obviously not suffice to exempt such a building. But if on the other hand, nuns are living in a neighbouring building to a convent only so that they may receive religious instruction there, or if students are living in a hostel close to the school or college in which they are imparted instruction, it is obvious that the purpose of such residence is not to earn profit but residence that is integrally connected with religious or educational activity”

3. In such circumstances, the mat