Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, an Ayurveda treatment institution, purchased 9.11 cents of land, with structures existing thereon, near M.G.Road, through Exhibits P1 and P2 sale deeds dated 29.03.2000 and 17.05.2000 respectively.
3. After the purchase of the property by the petitioner, the respondent Corporation is said to have revised the building tax in 2012, as could be seen from WPC 32232/14 2 Exhibit P3. Later, in the same year, through Exhibit P4 the respondent Corporation raised another demand for additional property tax, as if the property contained two structures. The petitioner seems to have complied with both the demands in Exhibits P3 and P4 and paid the requisite property tax.
4. Having concluded that the property contained two buildings, the respondent Corporation has demanded payment of arrears of property tax amounting to ` 3,63,691/- which, in fact, was paid by the petitioner on 13.03.2012, as per Exhibit P5.
5. Under those circumstances, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P7 application dated 26.12.2012 seeking regularisation of the structures on the property purchased by the petitioner way back in 2000. Without considering Exhibit P7, the respondent Corporation issued Exhibit P8 notice directing the petitioner to demolish the alleged WPC 32232/14 3 unauthorised construction. In the wake of Exhibit P9 objection submitted by the petitioner, the respondent Corporation provided a hearing to the petitioner, as could be seen from Exhibit P10 dated 19.07.2013. Eventually, apprehending demolition of the structures, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that all along only one building has been in existence in the property purchased by the petitioner. Since the property was purchased through two sale deeds, i.e. Exhibits P1 and P2, the respondent Corporation came to an erroneous conclusion that there were two buildings in existence having two separate numbers. At any rate, the petitioner, contends the learned counsel, has submitted Exhibit P7 application for regularisation, having paid the entire tax arrears as has been demanded by the respondent Corporation. WPC 32232/14 4
7. It is the singular contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Corporation ought not to have issued Exhibit P8 and initiated further steps without, in the first place, considering Exhibit P7 application of the petitioner.
8. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. To begin with, he has submitted that though there is only one structure in existence, it has two floors, a part of which is unauthorised. Eventually, he has submitted that the respondent Corporation will consider Exhibit P7 application of the petitioner in accordance with law before it could take any further steps.
9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, I do not deem it appropriate to adjudicate the issue on WPC 32232/14 5 merits. In fact, the respondent Corporation is required to consider the petitioner's Exhibit P7 application in terms of Section 406(i) of the Kerala Municipality Act.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P7 application of the petitioner for regularisation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv