JUDGMENT : Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. All these writ petitions have common questions of law and fact. Therefore, these petitions have been taken together for hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are one and the same, i.e., M/s ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. The petitioner renders services of providing passive telecom infrastructure for telecom service providers. For the purpose of establishing the passive telecom infrastructure, mobile telecom towers are to be constructed after obtaining due permission from the respective local authorities in the State of Kerala under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act 1994, the Kerala Municipality Act 1994, the Kerala Municipality Building Rules 1999 and the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011, 2.1 The mobile towers were not subjected to property tax previously. However, for the first time, mobile towers were brought within the property tax bracket in 2009. It is only in the year 2011 that the State of Kerala issued notifications bearing numbers 17/2011 and 19/2011 fixing upper limits and lower limits for imposing property taxes by Panchayaths and Municipalities on properties situated within their respective jurisdictional limits. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petitions impugning the demand notices for property tax issued to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no assessment and demand can be made of the property tax in case of escaped assessment for a period of four years prior to the date of issuance of the notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Kerala Municipality Act 1994 and Kerala Panchayath Raj Act 1994. 3.1 It is also submitted that no recovery of property tax can be effected from a person three years after the tax is assessed in view of Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act. 4. Ms K R Deepa, Learned Special Government Pleader (LSGD) does not dispute the legal position that if a tax is assessed then the recovery can be effected within the period of three years from the date of assessment order and if it is the case of escaped assessment, no tax can be assessed and demanded for a period earlier than four years from the date of notice of demand. 5. Sections 282 and 539, which are relevant for the purposes of these writ petitions are extracted hereunder: “282. 5. Sections 282 and 539, which are relevant for the purposes of these writ petitions are extracted hereunder: “282. POWER TO ASSESS IN CASE OF ESCAPE FROM ASSESSMENT.— Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder, where for any reason a person liable to pay any tax or fees leviable under this Chapter has escaped assessment in any half- year, the Secretary may at any time within four years from the date on which such person should have been assessed, serve on him a notice assessing to the tax or fee due and demanding payment thereof within fifteen days from the date of such service and thereupon the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, apply as if the assessment was made in the half-year to which the tax or fee relates. 539. LIMITATION FOR RECOVERY OF DUES.— (1) No distraint shall be made, no suit shall be instituted and no prosecution shall be commenced in respect of any sum due to a Municipality under this Act after the expiration of a period of three years from the date on which distraint might first have been made, suit might first have been instituted, or prosecution might first have been commenced, as the case may be, in respect of such sum: Provided that in the case of assessments made under section 282 the said period of three years shall be computed from the date on which distraint might have been made, suit instituted, or prosecution commenced, after the assessment under the said section shall have been made. (2) Where any amount due to the Municipality has been barred by limitation under subsection (1) due to the default of not taking steps at the appropriate time, and it is found in a lawful enquiry that it was lost due to the default of any officer or officers, the amount so lost to the Municipality shall be realised with twelve per cent interest thereon from such officer or officers.” 6. The language of the aforesaid two sections is plain and explicit. Admittedly, no assessment order was passed before the demand of the property tax in respect of the mobile towers erected by the petitioner. These notices have been issued demanding tax not only for the last four years from the date of the notice but earlier to that. The language of the aforesaid two sections is plain and explicit. Admittedly, no assessment order was passed before the demand of the property tax in respect of the mobile towers erected by the petitioner. These notices have been issued demanding tax not only for the last four years from the date of the notice but earlier to that. 6.1 In view thereof, the demand notices are unsustainable and the same are set aside. The matter is remitted to the respective Municipality/Panchayat, as the case may be, to issue fresh notice in respect of the property tax for the last four years from the date of the impugned notices. Thereafter finalize the assessment orders in accordance with the law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petitions stand allowed in part.