Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0256

of buildings not ordinarily let. The 'opinion' of the Executive Authority may sometimes adversely affect the owner of the building. Therefore, the reasons for formation of 'opinion' shall be recorded by the Executive Authority before proceeding to determine the annual rental value on the basis of the capital value in the case of buildings not ordinarily let. - Moncy Johny v. State of Kerala - 1997 (2) KLT 74: AIR 1998 Ker. 34 : 1997 (2) KLJ 38. [K.B.Eapen v. Executive Officer 1973 KLT 42 - Referred to.]

Government is competent to issue guidelines to be followed by Executive Authority in the matter of fixing the rate of tax in general revision. – Vareed Poulose v. State of Kerala – 1994 (2) KLT 21.

Ss.68 & 72(1)(f) [corresponding to S.203 & S.207 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]– Imposition of building tax under S.68 on residential quarters attached to charitable hospitals established and maintained by a religious denomination does not violate rights under Art.26(a) of the ConstitutionConstitution of India, Art.26(a) - What is guaranteed by Art.26(a) is the right of a religious denomination to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes. The imposition of the tax in question is not in any manner restrictive of the fundamental right of any person to establish or maintain any institution. Imposition of this tax has no direct effect on the establishm institution. If at all, it only erodes marginally the income that may be derived from the activity carried on in the institution. The effect, if any, is indirect, and is in any event insufficient to be an infraction of the right under Art.26(a). No person has a right to claim any exemption de hors the statutory provision. The Explanation to the section is specific in excluding residential quarters of doctors attached to charitable hospitals from the purview of the exemption. – Fr. Joseph v. Government of Kerala - 1990 (2) KLT 766.

Writ petition filed by Secretary Tax Payer's Association challenging revision of building tax of all the houses in a Panchayat - If maintainable – Constitution of India, Art.226 – In this case it is not one order that is challenged, all the orders passed against all the owners of the building are sought to be quashed. Such a petition cannot be justified under any public interest litigation. When a number of individuals are affected by an official act, they can, ordinarily bring a legal proceeding to challenge that only if all such persons join in the proceedings by name, except where the law confers upon them, a legal personality as a collective body such as an association which is incorporated by statute or formed under a statute. Apart from statutory exception, unincorporated associations cannot sue or be sued in their own name and only the members of such society jointly can bring a legal proceedings. - Porathissery Panchayat Tax Payer's Assn. v. Executive Officer – 1989 (1) KLT 849 :1989 (1) KLJ 664.

Disposal of revision - Failure to give reasons is violation of principles of natural justice - The Executive Officer is exercising a quasi-judicial function in determining the annual value of the buildings, and in disposing of the revision filed under R.7. The decision by a quasi-judicial authority without giving any reason in support of the same is one in violation of the principles of natural justice. - Kuniu v. Executive Officer - 1984 KLT 466 : 1984 KLJ 470.

S Ss.66 & 72(f) Corresponding to S.203 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]– Building tax and service tax – Exemption for charitable hospitals – The fact that an institution which is established with a charitable object and rendering charitable services to the public at large, is charging the cost of the services rendered by it in the case of persons who can afford to pay such charges, would not in any manner affect the charitable character of the institution. - Fr. Paul v. Executive Officer Kalloorkad Panchayat - 1974 KLT 289.

68 [Corresponding to S.203 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994] – Panchayats (Building tax) Rules (Kerala, 1963), Rr.6, 7, 8, 9 & 11 - First assessment to building tax - Bills of demand under R.11 can be issued only after revision of assessment in accordance with Rr.6 & 9 has been completed. - L. R. S. K. Ramaraj v. Vandanmedu Panchayat – 1966 KLT 353 : 1965 KLJ 1083.

68 (Corresponding to S.203 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994)- Panchayats (Building Tax) Rules, 1963, R.4 - Estate owners providing rent free quarters for staff - Levy of building tax - Mode of determining rental value - Building belonging to a class of buildings not ordinarily let - Requirement - Rent free staff quarters whether come under that category - What the proviso to R.4 says is, "any building of a class not ordinarily let", not, "any building nor ordinarily let". For a building to belong to a class of buildings not ordinarily let, there must be something in its structural features that renders it unsuitable for letting. The fact that a particular building is not, in fact, let or that there are no similar buildings in the locality that are let is no impediment to determining the rent at which the building can reasonably be expected to be let. – Travancore Tea Estate Co. Ltd. v. Executive Officer, Peermade Panchayat – 1970 KLT 1003 : 1971 KLJ 293.

Panchayats (Building tax) Rules (Kerala, 1963), R.4 Scope of Buildings not ordinarily let Buildings for hospital and pay-wards - Residential quarters for doctors and nursing sisters – Liability to buildings liable to tax are to be classified into two divisions, buildings of the class ordinarily let and buildings of the class not ordinarily let. If a building is so designed or constructed as to house a hospital,