Kerala High Court · Division Bench · 03.04.2024
No penal tax just for occupying a lawfully built building before the certificate
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held that the penal property tax for unlawful construction cannot be levied on a building constructed according to its permit merely because it was occupied before the occupancy certificate was issued; ordinary property tax remains payable.
Key points
- Section 242 of the Kerala Municipality Act applies to buildings constructed unlawfully, or to the use of such buildings; it does not reach a building built in accordance with its permit.
- Occupying a lawfully constructed building before the occupancy certificate is not, by itself, a ground for penal tax; no other provision authorised such a penalty (Article 265: no tax without authority of law).
- The Corporation may still levy ordinary property tax under Section 233 from the date of occupation.
The facts
A hospital building in Kochi was built under a 2002 permit, with the ground floor completed in 2003 and the rest in 2011. The owners asked for the certificates required under Rule 22 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, and were told to produce fire and pollution NOCs, which they say they produced in 2012; the occupancy certificate was still not issued. The Corporation then demanded property tax with the penalty under Section 242, on the ground that the building had been occupied without the certificates. A single judge dismissed the owners’ writ petition, pointing to the statutory appeal.
What the Court held
The Division Bench allowed the appeal. Section 242 applies only where a building is constructed or reconstructed unlawfully, or where such an unlawfully built building is used; mere use of a lawfully built building does not attract it. The Corporation could point to no other provision for a penalty on unauthorised occupation, and under Article 265 no tax can be levied without authority of law. Since the order was not really one under Section 242, the alternate remedy did not bar the petition. The order was quashed; the Corporation was directed to issue a fresh notice under Section 233 for ordinary property tax, including for the period of occupation before the certificate, and to give credit for amounts already paid.
Why it matters
The decision interprets Kerala’s municipal law, so it is not binding in Maharashtra. The underlying principle, that a penalty needs clear statutory authority and that lawful construction is different from unauthorised construction, is useful when buyers or societies face penal charges because a developer or authority delayed the occupancy certificate. Maharashtra’s own municipal statutes must be checked for the specific charge in question.
Twelve-page judgment in English. This page summarises the decision for general information; it is not a substitute for the full text and not legal advice. Check whether the decision has since been appealed, modified or overruled.
Have a question about your society?
Write to the office with a brief description of the matter. Meetings are by prior appointment.