IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 26995 of 2006(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINU M.JOHNSON, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.JOHNSON, MANARETHU, ANAPARAMBAL NORTH P.O., THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE THALAVADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, THALAVADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. 3. M.M.PAULOSE, MANNARETHU (SHOBHA NIVAS), ANAPARAMBAL NORTH P.O., THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN FOR R3 SRI.C.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 31397 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26995 of 2006 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.6.05 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.4.06 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.8.06 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.R3(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C4-230/2004 DATED 8.4.05 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) Nos.26995 & 31397 of 2006 -------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. In W.P.(C).26995/2006, the challenge is against Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Revision Petition No.38/2006 which was filed by the 3rd respondent herein who is the petitioner in W.P.(C). 31397/2006 filed for implementation of Ext.P3 order mentioned above. 2. The facts of the case are that the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C). 26995/2006 was running a Small Scale Industrial Unit manufacturing aluminum utensils in Building No.XII/356, with all licences including the licence issued by the 1st respondent Panchayat. In the Building Tax Assessment Register, the name of the 3rd respondent was shown as the owner of the building. Periodically the licence was being renewed and the last renewal was for the year 2005-06. At that time, the petitioner herein applied to the Panchayat for change of name in the Building Tax Assessment Register incorporating her name as the owner of the building and she also wanted the licence, which was issued in W.P.(C).26995 & 31397/06 2 the name of the 3rd respondent, to be issued in her favour. 3. By order dated 8.4.2005, the Secretary of the Panchayat rejected the request made by the petitioner. Subsequently she made another application on 16.5.2005 for the same purpose and that was allowed. Against that order, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal to the Panchayat Committee. The appeal was dismissed. He carried the matter in Revision to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The matter was accordingly considered by the Panchayat and the Panchayat passed an order rejecting the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent. 3rd respondent filed Revision Petition No.38/2006. By Ext.P3, the Revision was allowed by the Tribunal and the Secretary of the Panchayat was directed to restore the entry in the Building Tax Assessment Register. It is there upon that this writ petition has been filed challenging the said order. 4. The 3rd respondent in W.P.(C).26995/2006 has filed W.P.(C). 31397/2006 contending that in spite of the Tribunal having W.P.(C).26995 & 31397/06 3 allowed the Revision, the Panchayat has issued a notice which is marked as Ext.P2 in that writ petition informing him that the licence can be granted only in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C). 26995/2006, as her name has been entered in the Building Tax Assessment Register. It is stated that aggrieved by the aforesaid matters, an appeal was filed to the Panchayat Committee along with a stay petition which are pending and that during the pendency of the appeal, Panchayat issued a notice marked as Ext.P5, requiring him to stop his Industrial Unit. Hence he filed W.P.(C).31397/2006. 5. The validity of the order passed by the Panchayat was considered by the Tribunal while disposing of Revision Petition No.38/2006. If the order is upheld, W.P.(C).26995/2006 will have to be dismissed and W.P.(C).31397/2006 will have to be allowed. Therefore, I proceed to examine the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal allowing Revision Petition No.38/2006. 6. The petitioner in W.P.(C).26995/2006 challenged the W.P.(C).26995 & 31397/06 4 maintainability of the Revision Petition itself before the Tribunal. According to the petitioner in W.P.(C).26995/2006, the Revision cannot be entertained against an order under Rule 17 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Building Tax and Surcharge Thereon) Rules, 1996 ('Rules' for short), as the subject matter of the Revision is not one coming within any of the items described in the schedule to the Tribunal Rules. This contention of the petitioner has been dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of the order. 7. It is held that the change of the ownership in the Building Tax Assessment Register is governed by Rule 17 of the 'Building Tax Rules' and an order passed by the Secretary is appealable to the Panchayat Committee. Tribunal further held that under Section 276(5) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, ('Act' for short) an appeal on any notice, order or action taken by the Panchayat or a revision on a decision taken by the Panchayat or a Standing Committee on any Appeal shall lie to the Tribunal provided the subject matter of the Appeal or Revision is in respect of any of the matters described therein. Evidently matters made W.P.(C).26995 & 31397/06 5 appealable or revisable under Section 276(5) of the Act are assessment, demand and collection of taxes or fees or cess. Going by the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, a person whose name is shown in the Building Tax Assessment Register, is liable to pay tax. Necessarily the Panchayat is also bound to prepare Building Tax Assessment Register, incorporating the name of the owner of the building. These facts have been appreciated by the Tribunal and it has been held that entry in the Building Tax Assessment Register regarding owner of a building is a matter coming within the purview of the assessment, demand and collection of taxes and therefore the Revision is maintainable. 8. Having considered the aforesaid reasoning assigned by the Tribunal, I do not find my way to accept the restricted and narrow interpretation that is sought to be placed by the petitioner. Admittedly a matter within the purview of assessment, demand and collection of taxes can be the subject matter of Appeal or Revision. If that be so, anything incidental thereto should also come within the scope of its jurisdiction or otherwise it will be a very restricted and narrow interpretation, W.P.(C).26995 & 31397/06 6 which will not advance the purpose of the statute itself providing an easy remedy to the aggrieved. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with the Tribunal that the Revision is maintainable. 9. The surviving question is whether the decision of the Secretary confirmed by the Panchayat to incorporate the name of the petitioner herein in the Building Tax Assessment Register is correct or not. A reading of Ext.P3 order itself testifies that admittedly right from 1995-96, the building in question has been assessed in the name of the 3rd respondent herein. He has been running the small scale Industry with the licences issued by the Panchayat and other authorities since then. The land where the building is situated do not stand in the name of the 3rd respondent but is in the name of the petitioner. As is evident from the impugned order itself what made the Panchayat and its Secretary of the Panchayat to conclude that the petitioner's name should be entered in the Building Tax Assessment Register was only the fact that the land belongs to the petitioner. For that reason alone, the Panchayat thought that the building could not have been that of anybody else other W.P.(C).26995 & 31397/06 7 than that of the owner of the property where the building is si uated. As rightly held by the Tribunal, there is no ban supporting this conclusion of the Panchayat and the Secretary. 10. Admittedly, 3rd respondent's name was entered in the Building Tax Assessment Register. A change in terms of Rule 17 of the Rules was permissible only if the person who applies for a change produces documents in support of his claim. In this case, apart from the claim of the owner of the land where the building is constructed, no materials whatsoever was also produced by the petitioner to justify his claim. For this reason the conclusion of the Tribunal deserves to be upheld. I am inclined to agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal and therefore, W.P.(C).26995/2006 is only to be dismissed and I do so. 11. Since W.P.(C).26995/2006 has been dismissed and the order of the Tribunal is upheld, Exts.P2 and P5 notices in W.P. (C).31397/2006 are only to be quashed and I do so. Panchayat is directed to implement the order of the Tribunal and pass orders W.P.(C).26995 & 31397/06 8 in the application made by the petitioner in W.P.(C).31397/2006 for licence in respect of his Small Scale Industrial Unit. W.P.(C).31397/2006 is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs