A municipal authority, having previously assigned building numbers and collected taxes, cannot refuse to accept subsequent property tax payments due to internal administrative irregularities, but maintains the right to inspect the property and initiate legal proceedings if non-compliance or illegal construction is discovered.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2026 The petitioners are the joint owners of the building bearing room Nos.10/424 A1 to A12. The construction of the aforesaid building was completed during the month of January, 2021. It was originally in the name of the father of the petitioner, and later the same was transferred in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have paid tax in respect of the said building as evidenced by Exts.P5 to P13, during the month of February, 2021 . Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that, the respondents are not accepting the tax, for the current year, and the writ petition was submitted in such circumstances, seeking the following reliefs:

“i) To declare that the refusal by the Secretary of the Ramanattukara Municipality to accept the property tax in respect of the buildings in question of the petitioners is violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and the statutory responsibility and duty of him under the Kerala Municipalities Act.

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the first and second respondents to accept the property tax offered by the petitioners in respect of their building bearing Room Nos. 10/424 A9, A10, A12, A5, A4, A6, A8, A2 and A3 of Division No. 18 (Old Division No. 10) of the Municipality.

iii) To dispense with the production of English Translation of vernacular documents.

iv) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. A statement is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, wherein, it is averred that, the father of the petitioners was granted a building permit bearing No.BL-277/2014-15 dated 11.11.2015 for the construction of a commercial building for a total built-up area of 1685.41 m². Later, while undertaking the property tax reform activities in the Municipality and digitizing the data of the buildings in the K-SMART software, it was noticed that the building numbers referred to by the petitioners were not available in the official assessment register maintained by the Municipality. In such circumstances, to ascertain the building numbers and to verity whether the said property numbers were lawfully allotted, a notice was issued to the petitioners requiring the petitioners to produce the approved completion plan of the said building so as to verify the numbers and to facilitate the further proceedings.

3. It was also averred that, in response to Ext.P1 application submitted by one of the petitioners, the petitioners were informed that, since the aforesaid room numbers were not reflected in the assessment register, it would be necessary for the petitioners to submit the Occupancy Certificate / Completion Plan of the said building to further process, before the acceptance of the property tax. Alternatively, the petitioners were also advised to apply for regularisation of the said building before the Town Planning Department of the Municipality.

4. A reply affidavit was also submitted by the petitioners in response to the averments contained in the statement.

5. I have heard Sri K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Mohammed Shah, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners asserted that, since the building numbers are already allotted, and the tax is already collected from the petitioners as evidenced by Exts.P4 to P13, the respondents are bound to accept the tax.

7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents