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

TH WEDNESDAY, THE 28 DAY OF MAY 2025 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 10855 OF 2023 PETITIONERS:

1 J.K.PEARL APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, N. J. K PEARL, PULLEPPADY ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682 018. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI.P.KRISHNA DAS, S/O.LATE P.CHANDU, RESIDING AT

35/1125, BINI NIVAS, CHAKKUNGAL ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, PIN – 682 025.

2 P.KRISHNADAS, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.CHANDU, 35/1125, BINI NIVAS, CHAKKUNGAL ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, PIN – 682 025.

BY ADVS.

M.A.ZOHRA LAKSHMI B.SHENOY AKBAR ZAHEER A.N.

RESPONDENTS:

1 KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, P.B.NO.1016, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 682 011.

2 THE REVENUE OFFICER, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, P.B.NO.1016, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682 011.

BY ADV D.G.VIPIN, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the demand issued by the 1^st respondent Corporation, as evidenced by Ext.P3, for building tax pertaining to the residential apartment complex for the years 2005 to 2023. The 1^st petitioner is the Apartment Owners association and the 2^nd petitioner is the erstwhile land owner of the property, where the building is constructed. The building was completed in the year 2004 on the basis of Ext.P1 permit and Ext P2 the occupancy certificate dated 28.10.2005 was also issued to them. Later, a demand notice was issued as per Ext.P3 dated 16.01.2023, which was served upon the 2^nd petitioner requiring him to pay an amount of Rs.1,06,097/- as the arrears of building tax pertaining to the assessment years 2005-2006 to 2022-2023. This writ petition is filed challenging the same.

2. Heard Sri.M.A.Zohra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.Janardhana Shenoy, learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation.

3. The challenge raised by the petitioners against Ext.P3, are mainly on three grounds. First contention is that, Ext.P3 notice was served upon the 2^nd petitioner who is no longer holding any title or right over the property or the building which is the subject matter of the assessment. The 2^nd petitioner was the original owner of the property where the building is constructed and the same is already purchased by individual owners. Therefore, according to the petitioners, an assessment without notice to the present apartment owners are not proper as the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.

4. The second contention raised by the petitioners is that, the assessment was made for the first time by complying with the criteria of plinth area, whereas the earlier assessments were made on the basis of annual rental value of the building. It is also the case of the petitioner that, while computing the plinth area of the building, the car porch was also included, which was not proper.

5. The 3^rd contention raised by the petitioners is that, by virtue of the statutory stipulations contained under Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act, the Corporation could not have demanded tax for a period of more than three years preceding the date of the demand notice.

6. The learned standing counsel opposed the reliefs sought by the petitioners.

7. After carefully going through the records, I find merits in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards the first contention, namely, the lack of notice to the present property owners, I find that, the same is legally sustainable. Since the property/buildings/apartments now stand in the name of the individual owners and the 1^st petitioner is representing the present owners, it is only proper that the proceedings of assessment is issued and the arrears , if any, be demanded, after issuing notice to the present owners or at least the 1^st petitioner, who is representing the