V.Shanmughan vs The Secretary on 8 February, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 19837 of 2002(J)


1. V.SHANMUGHAN, IV/444, 'ANURADHA',
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :08/02/2008

 O R D E R
                       C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                  ....................................................................
                                O.P. No.19837 of 2002
                  ....................................................................
                 Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008.

                                         JUDGMENT

Even though O.P. was filed in 2002 challenging demand of arrears of

property tax, the Palakkad Municipality has not cared to file any counter.

The petitioner’s case is that arrears of tax is demanded for the building

purchased by the petitioner. Obviously if the building was in arrears of tax,

the same could be recovered by attachment and sale of the property and if

petitioner does not clear the arrears, the property can be attached and sold.

It was for the petitioner to have got tax clearance certificate from the

Municipality before purchasing the property and if property is in arrears of

tax, the petitioner is bound to pay the same. Therefore, challenge against

recovery proceedings is not tenable. The petitioner is also challenging the

amount of tax due for the building for the reason that similar buildings are

assessed at lower rate. It is seen that property tax assessed in many cases is

not on a reasonable or scientific basis as provided under the statute. The

more influential probably end up paying lesser tax, while others are

demanded of higher tax. The half-yearly tax in this case which is Rs.340/-

in absolute terms is not a high amount of tax. Therefore, there is no need to

2

consider any revision of tax for the past period. However, there will be

direction to the first respondent to fix the tax in comparison with tax

payable for similar buildings in the same area for the current period and in

the future. The petitioner will produce copy of this judgment for

compliance.

The O.P. is disposed of with the above direction.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms