Kerala High Court
M/S.Leader Properties And Estates ... vs Corporation Of Kochi on 4 June, 1997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/8TH ASHADHA 1934
WP(C).No. 6586 of 2012 (W)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
M/S.LEADER PROPERTIES AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,
DOOR NO.935, GKS TOWER, GROUND FLOOR ANNEX,
EVR PERIYAR SALAI CHENNAI 600084, TAMIL NADU STATE
REP.BY IT MANAGING DIRECTOR
MUHAMMED ABDUL KARIM FAIZAL P.V
M/S. ERRALAD HOTEL MAJOR ROAD VYTILA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
SRI.ANIL GEORGE
SRI.K.S.SUMEESH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI
CORPORATION OFFICE KOCHI-11 ERNAKULAM
2. THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION OF KOCHI CORPORATION OFFICE KOCHI-11
ERNAKULAM
3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER
CORPORATION OF KOCHI CORPORATION OFFICE KOCHI-11
ERNAKULAM
4. THE REVENUE OFFICER
CORPORATION OF KOCHI CORPORATION OFFICE KOCHI-11
ERNAKULAM
5. STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION
SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN,SC,COCHIN CORPORATIO
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI
BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).6586/12
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.180/2010
EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 4.6.1997
EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OPF THE OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE BUILDING PERMIT.
EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.9.2010 ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DATED 11.11.2010 THE PETITIONER
SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION HEREIN IN ORDER TO FORWARD THE SAME TO
THE GOVERNMENT ON 29.10.2010
EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.11.2010
EXT.P7 TRUE PHOPTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.11.2010
EXT.P8 TO P8(J) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.8.2011 FOR
BUILDING NO.UA/1096 C,C1,C2,D,D1,D2,E,E1,E2,F1
EXT.P9 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.09.2011
EXT.P10 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.1.2012
EXT.P11 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.1.2012.
/true copy/
P.A. To Judge
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
........................................
W.P.(C).6586/2012
..............................................
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the fifth respondent.
2. There are two issues in this writ petition. First issue is in relation to Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for regularization of a construction made. Second issue is in relation to the legality of Ext.P8 series whereby property tax has been demanded.
3. Insofar as the first issue namely, Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for regularization of a construction is concerned, it is submitted that Smt.Geetha Janardhanan had obtained Ext.P2 permit from the first respondent. On the expiry of the validity of Ext.P2, by Ext.P3, validity period of the permit has extended upto 1.6.2009. However, the building was completed subsequently. Therefore, on W.P.(C).6586/12 2 29.10.10, petitioner, who subsequently purchased the building from the transferee of Smt.Geetha Janardhanan as per Ext.P1, submitted Ext.P5 application for regularization of the construction. According to the petitioner, this application was processed by the Corporation and forwarded to the fifth respondent and that it is pending consideration before the said respondent. In this background the first prayer sought by the petitioner is to direct the fifth respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P5 on an expeditious basis.
4. As already noticed, Ext.P5 is the application made. It is also stated by the petitioner that on submission of Ext.P5, by Ext.P6 they were asked to remit the fee for regularization and that the fee was also remitted by Ext.P7. In view of these facts and also taking note of the case of the petitioner that the application is now pending before the fifth respondent, I direct the fifth respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
W.P.(C).6586/12 3
5. The second issue is regarding the challenge against Ext.P8 series of demands issued by the Corporation for payment of property tax. Ext.P8 series show that the assessment was made in the name of M/s. Bensy & Company, who, according to the petitioner, was the architect of the project in question. From Ext.P9, it is seen that the amount demanded by Ext.P8 series has been paid by the assessee, M/s. Bensy & Company. According to the Corporation, for the arrears that were due, a subsequent demand evidenced by Ext.R1(d) was issued to M/s. Bensy & Company on 8.8.2011 demanding remittance of Rs.1,29,14,403/-. They also submit that on receipt of the said demand, M/s. Bensy & Company filed Ext.R1(e) objection and that by Ext.P11, petitioner was informed that to consider the objections, they should remit Rs.50 Lakhs demanded as per Ext.R1(d).
6. From the above facts it is obvious that although Ext.P11 communication was addressed to the petitioner, the assessment as per Exts.P8 and R1(d) are in the name of M/s. Bensy & Company who is not a petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, it is for the assessee to agitate their W.P.(C).6586/12 4 grievance against the aforesaid assessments and to that extent, petitioner cannot maintain a challenge against Exts.P8 and R1(d).
7. In that view of the matter, taking note of the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I leave open the grievance of the petitioner against Exts.P8 and R1(d) to be agitated in appropriate proceedings.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ PA To Judge