IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14195 of 2009(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.P.JACOB, S/O.PAULOSE, MANJALI HOUSE, VANIYAMPARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.P.R.VENKETESH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD. 2. SECRETARY, KANNAMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNAMBRA, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. MATHEW VADAKKAL, R2 BY ADVS. MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, MR.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, MR.S.A.ANAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14195/2009-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11.05.2001. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 30/05/2001 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 15/06/2005 FOR REMITTANCE OF BUILDING TAX FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 AND 2005-06. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF D & O LICENSE FEE IN THE NAME OF ELIAMMA. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REGISTERED SETTLEMENT DEED N. 3576/06 DT. 20.10.2006 EXECUTED AT SRO VADAKKANCHERRY. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO R.1. DTD. 09/03/2007. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DT. 27/03/2008 IN W.P.(C).10397/2008. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PANCHAYATH DT. 24/07/2008. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED 28/07/2008. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO R.1. DTD. 16/08/2008. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 22/08/2008 FROM THE R.1. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DT. 30/10/2008. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER DATED 25/11/2008. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 28/11/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 14195 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner wanted to pay the property tax payable under the Panchayat Raj Act, in relation to the buildings with two building numbers. The panchayat refused to collect that tax on the premise that those buildings do not exist any more and a different structure stands there. The petitioner made a representation to the Deputy Director of Panchayats, who is not a statutory authority in terms of the Panchayat Raj Act to decide on such issues. This court, without expressing anything on merits, issued Ext.P8 judgment directing the Deputy Director to consider the issue. Following that, the Deputy Director issued Ext.P13 disclosing that the panchayat authorities are of the view that there were two tiled structures with two building numbers and the panchayat found that those buildings no more exist and it was accordingly that the panchayat struck off those building numbers from the assessment register. The panchayat took the stand before the Deputy Director that the petitioner had erected WP(C)14195/2009 2 a fresh building with a concrete roof and is housing a grocery shop therein and that there is violation of Section 220(b) of Panchayat Raj Act and that therefore tax cannot be collected. 2. The factual situation noticed above essentially call for, either the petitioner obtaining a due certificate of having properly completed the building or having the construction regularised in terms of law, if permissible. The question of collecting property tax in terms of the panchayat law would arise only on the completion of that procedure unless the panchayat proceeds to collect tax after classifying the building as an unauthorised building. It is only a mode to prevent escape of revenue but would in no manner, regularise any illegality. 3. However, it is not the Deputy Director, who has to decide such issues particularly when the petitioner may have right to statutory remedies by way of appeal, revision etc and for further relief against such statutory orders on sustainable grounds, if available. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Ext.P13 is quashed, solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and the petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent, WP(C)14195/2009 3 Secretary and make a written submission, touching the relevant facts. This would enable the Secretary to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and decide on the question of approving the construction or regularising any illegality, if permissible and to decide on the question of collection of tax. This judgment does not foreclose any right or power of the Secretary in terms of the provisions of law including Section 220(b). However, no other steps shall be taken without giving the petitioner, an opportunity of being heard and considering the issues afore-directed. The petitioner will appear before the second respondent on the strength of this judgment on 30.6.2009 so that the second respondent can fix the proper date for hearing. Let a final decision follow within a period of three months therefrom and be communicated to the petitioner. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/15/6