Baburaj vs Tahsildar on 16 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 34830 of 2001(U)



1. BABURAJ
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. TAHSILDAR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :16/02/2009

 O R D E R
                      HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
                ---------------------------
                     O.P.NO.34830 OF 2001
                ----------------------------
           DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P1 and

P3 and also for a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate

order on Ext.P2 in accordance with law after inspecting the

building and ascertaining the purpose for which it was used.

According to the petitioners, the ground floor of the building was

used for the purpose of their wholesale rice business and the first

floor was used for the accommodation and residential facilities of

the petitioners and their employees. The building was assessed to

tax and the amount payable is assessed at Rs.23,400/-. The order

was passed by categorising the building as “other building”.

Ext.P1 is the copy of the order of assessment. Petitioners

contended before the authorities that first floor of the building was

used for the purpose of accommodation of the employees of the

petitioners. So it cannot be treated as “other building”. The

-2-
O.P.No.34830/2001

contention was rejected by the assessing authority and the

Appellate Authority. The first floor of the building is used for

boarding purposes of the employees of the petitioners. At any

rate, this will not come under the definition of residential

building. Moreover, the petitioners have no case that in the draft

plan and permit issued by the authority, the first floor is shown

as residential portion. Therefore, the assessment of the building is

legal and valid. I find no reason to interfere with the order

passed by the authorities. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled

to get any relief claimed in this original petition.

Original Petition is therefore dismissed.

HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.

kcv.

-3-
O.P.No.34830/2001

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

————————–

O.P.NO.34830 OF 2001

————————–

JUDGMENT

16th February, 2009