IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22622 of 2004(R)
1. BIJU T.GEORGE, KUMARATHUKUDIYIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :25/07/2008
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W.P.(C). No.22622/2004-R
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner’s mother was the owner of 17.500 cents of land
which was purchased as per Sale Deed No.3561/80 of Karikkode
SRO. She constructed a single storied commercial building
consisting of shop rooms in the said property and, later it was
assessed to building tax as per Ext.P1. The building is having
separate building number issued by the Panchayat. She
constructed another single storied building comprising of shop
rooms. That was also assessed to building tax as per Ext.P2 and
the Panchayat has also allotted separate building numbers to the
said building. After her death, the petitioner along with his father
constructed first floor of the two buildings. It is the case of the
petitioner that both of them constructed the two buildings by
contributing equal share towards construction cost. As per Ext.P3,
an order of assessment has been passed clubbing both the
buildings as a single unit. This was challenged in appeal before
the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed as per
W.P.(C).NO.22622/2004-R
-:2:-
Ext.P5. Even though revision petition was filed, that was also
dismissed by Ext.P7. These orders are under challenge in this writ
petition.
2. The contentions raised by the petitioner are two fold,
viz. that the two buildings were constructed by the petitioner and
his father jointly by contributing equally towards construction cost
and that the buildings have to be assessed separately as they are
independent units. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court
reported in Lalitha v.State of Kerala [1994 (2) KLT 66].
3. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit.
It is averred therein that the building was inspected by the Charge
Officer on 25/01/2002 and going by his report, the first floor of the
building has two portions separated by distance of 5cms and two
portions of plinth area of 187.86 m2 and 265.98m2 respectively.
The said two portions are constructed on separate pillars.
4. The question whether the two buildings are separate
has not been considered by the appellate authority or the
revisional authority properly and even going by the assessment
order, it does not appear that these aspects have been considered.
The buildings originally constructed (ground floor) were assessed
separately and since the case pleaded is that only the first floor of
W.P.(C).NO.22622/2004-R
-:3:-
the two buildings have been constructed by the petitioner and his
father jointly by contributing equal share towards construction
cost and that the same cannot be assessed as single unit, it is a
crucial aspect which requires detailed consideration at the hands
of the assessing authority itself. In that view of the matter, the
orders Exts.P3, P5 and P7 are hereby quashed. The assessing
authority will re-examine the matter after giving an opportunity to
the petitioner to adduce evidence. The petitioner will file his
detailed objection stating the grounds which he relies upon within
a period of one month from today, and the assessing authority will
consider the matter on merits and pass final orders within a period
of four months thereafter.
The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
Judge
ms