IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 624 of 2004()
1. T.K. KOSHY, 29/715-A, JANATHA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. REVENUE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI,
3. THE CHAIRMAN, TAXATION AND FINANCE
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :31/08/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P. No. 624 OF 2004
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2007
O R D E R
In this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner who is an assessee to
property tax by the 1st respondent, Corporation of Cochin, in respect of
his residential building having door No.29/715-A, situated at Janatha
Sahakarana Road near Vyttila, Kochi impugns the judgment dt.24.03.04
in CMA No.211 of 2001 on the files of the 2nd Additional District Judge,
Ernakulam.
2. In the CMA, the petitioner challenged the decision of the
Taxation and Finance Committee of the Corporation of Cochin in appeal
against the order of the Revenue Officer in respect of property tax
assessment for the building in question. The 1st respondent is the
Corporation of Cochin and 2nd respondent is the Revenue Officer and
the 3rd respondent is the Chairman of the Taxation and Finance
Committee. The petitioner submits that originally annual rental value of
the building was fixed by the 1st respondent at Rs.60,000/- and that the
rental value of the land on which the building is situated, at Rs.500/-.
On the basis of such fixation, the yearly property tax was fixed at
Rs.7,275/- with effect from 01.04.90. On filing revision before the
Revenue Officer, the annual rental value of the building was re-fixed at
CRP No. 624 of 2004
2
Rs.54,000/- and accordingly the property tax was redetermined at
Rs.5,260/- per year. In appeal, the 3rd respondent reduced the annual
rental value of the building to Rs.40,000/- and that of the land to
Rs.250/- and the property tax was re-fixed at Rs.3,878/-. The above
assessment was challenged by the revision petitioner by filing CMA
No.125 of 2000 before the District Court, Ernakulam. The District Court
by its judgment dt.13.11.2000, set aside the order of the appellate
authority, the 3rd respondent, on the ground that the order passed by the
3rd respondent was a non-speaking one and remanded the case for a
fresh consideration on merits by the 3rd respondent. After remand
though the petitioner appellant sought for calling for and perusal of the
records for a comparative examination of the property tax payable in
respect of a neighbouring building No.31/354-A, that application was not
considered. But, after undertaking a local inspection by the 3rd
respondent, a fresh order was passed reducing the annual rental value
of the building from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.36,000/-. But as regards the
annual rental value of the land what was done was to enhance the same
from the originally fixed amount of Rs.250/- to Rs.500/-. Thus the
property tax was re-assessed at Rs.3,531/- per annum. The half yearly
payment thus being Rs.1,766/-. Annexure A is the said order. It is
against Annexure A , the petitioner filed CMA No.211 of 2001 before the
CRP No. 624 of 2004
3
District Court. In the CMA, the petitioner filed IA No.1018 of 2001 for a
direction to the respondents for producing the records relating to the
property tax assessment of a neighbouring building No.31/354-A.
Though the IA was allowed, the respondents did not comply with the
said order and thereafter the revision petitioner produced a certified
copy of the relevant page of the property tax assessment register
maintained by the Corporation in respect of building No.31/354-A. The
District Court, however, after hearing, passed Annexure B order
dismissing CMA No.211 of 2001. It is impugning Annexure B that the
present Civil Revision Petition has been filed urging various grounds.
3. Very elaborate submissions were addressed before me by
Sri.Philip Mathew, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
Sri.K.Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would
strongly resist all the submissions of Mr.Philip Mathew. I have
considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. I have gone through
the various documents made available for my perusal at the Bar. I am
of the view that there is justification for re-fixing the annual rental value
of the building belonging to the petitioner at Rs.30,000/- and there was
no justification at all for the respondents to have enhance the annual
rental value of the land at Rs.500/-. I set aside the impugned order and
allow the Civil Revision Petition to the extent of re-fixing the annual
CRP No. 624 of 2004
4
rental value of the building belonging to the petitioner at Rs.30,000/- and
that of the petitioner’s land at Rs.250/-. The 1st respondent is directed to
ensure that fresh consequential orders are passed by the concerned
authority at the earliest.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the above extent but
without any order as to costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
CRP No. 624 of 2004
5