IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 19837 of 2002(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.SHANMUGHAN, IV/444, 'ANURADHA', M/26A (8), KSHD COLONY, KALLEPPULLY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER SRI.M.K.SREEGESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PALAKKAD. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.33837/2002 IN OP NO.19837/2002 DISMISSED: 8.2.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DT.1.4.93 ASSESSING THE PROPERTY TAX. P2(a): TRUE COPY OF RECEIPTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAX IN RESPECT OF HOUSE NOS.IV/443. P2(b): .DO. IV/445. P3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.23.11.2001 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P4: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R2. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF R2 REJECTING THE APPEAL. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE 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