T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.@mdashThe Writ Petition is filed seeking for a declaration that the respondent is not entitled to demand property tax for the period prior to 17.5.2007 from the petitioner, since the remaining period is beyond three years and barred by limitation.
2. The short facts leading to the case are the following.
3. The petitioner purchased three rooms bearing No. 13/312 of Kottayam Municipality, i.e., room Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of Adam Tower, M.C. Road, Star Junction, Kottayam in the auction conducted by the civil court. The sale was conducted for release of decree debt in O.S. No. 109/97 of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam in E.P. No. 170/06. The same was conducted on 24.1.2006 and the petitioner purchased the property on that day. The purchase money of Rs. 6,50,000/- was deposited before the Sub Court and accordingly the sale was confirmed on 27.3.2006. The petitioner was put in possession of the said rooms on 18.11.2006.
4. For effecting mutation, the petitioner approached the respondent-Municipality. Thereafter, he was issued a demand notice, Exhibit P2, demanding an amount of Rs. 38,823/- towards tax for the period 1996-97 to 2007-08 along with penal charges.
5. This was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, which was rejected by the Secretary of the Municipality pointing out that the appeal shall be filed before the Finance Standing Committee. The petitioner was also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 53,758/- being the building tax for the period 1996-97 to 2007-08 along with penal charges, as per Exhibit P4 demand notice. Exhibit P5 is the copy of the appeal filed against the same by the petitioner before the Finance Standing Committee. Exhibit P6 is a further demand notice received by the petitioner. It refers to a decision of the Finance Standing Committee, namely decision No. 4 dated 8.4.2008. It is stated that the same was not communicated to the petitioner. Exhibit P7 is the communication issued to the petitioner reflecting the decision of the Finance Standing Committee. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the purchase money is still available with the Execution Court and the execution petition is still pending. It is pointed out that the petitioner has purchased the property free of all encumbrances and therefore the liability cannot be cast on the petitioner. It is contended that the defaulter is having the principal liability to pay the amount to the Municipality and hence it is upto the Municipality to approach the Execution Court by filing appropriate claim petition to get the amount. It is further contended that the claim against the petitioner is barred by limitation.
7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. It is submitted that the proceedings issued by the Municipality are perfectly in order.
8. Evidently, the petitioner is a purchaser of the property in court auction. Even now, the purchase money is available with the execution court. Therefore, it will be open to the Municipality to approach the execution court by filing appropriate claim petition and the same will be considered by the Execution Court once the Municipality files the claim petition.
9. Till the matter is finally decided by the execution court, the demand raised against the petitioner will not be enforced. The legal question raised by the petitioner is left open.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
