IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 1861 of 1999(V)
1. C.SREEDHARAA MENON
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COCHIN CORPORATION REP.BY ITS SECRY.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :15/12/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 1861 of 1999
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 15th December, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners occupy a two storeyed building. The ground
floor was rented out for which property tax was fixed by the
respondent-Corporation as Rs. 773/- per half year. The first floor was
occupied by the petitioners themselves for which tax fixed was Rs.
261/-. Subsequently, the ground floor also was occupied by the
petitioners themselves and the fact was intimated to the respondent-
Corporation. The petitioners have been served with Ext. P8 demand
notice enhancing the tax from Rs. 773/- to Rs.968/- per half year. The
petitioners’ revision met with Ext. P10 order reducing it to Rs. 776/-.
The petitioner’s revision petition was dismissed by Ext. P13 order.
The petitioners’ contention is that both the ground floor and the first
floor are of the same area and the same type of construction. Both
are occupied by the owners themselves. That being so, the property
tax cannot differ vastly as assessed. The petitioners further submit
that in respect of adjacent buildings bearing Nos. 39/3494/4043,
39/3497/4046, 39/3495/4044 and 39/3496/4045 owned by others
having plinth area of 930 sq. feet with mosaic flooring, the tax is only
Rs. 340/-, whereas the petitioners’ building having the plinth area of
750 sq. feet with red oxide flooring, assessed to property tax at Rs.
776/-. On the above grounds, the petitioners seek the following
reliefs:
“i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order or direction to compel the respondent Corporation to pass
fresh assessment order in accordance with law in respect of the
ground-floor flat owned by the petitioners, bearing No. 39/4042;
ii) to issue an order quashing Exhibit P8 notice and P13 order
as illegal and arbitrary;
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
O.P No.1861/1999. -: 2 :-
order or direction restraining the respondent from taking further
steps pursuant to Exhibit P13 order.”
2. The learned counsel for the Corporation would submit that
the difference in tax is on account of the fact that the ground floor
was let out and the property tax was fixed on the basis of the rental
value calculated on the basis of the rent received by the petitioners,
whereas the first floor was occupied by the petitioners themselves for
which the rental value was calculated as applicable to own occupied
buildings. The respondent would therefore support the impugned
orders.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. No counter affidavit has been filed. It may be possible to
support the contentions of the respondent, if the ground floor was let
out and the first floor was occupied by the petitioners themselves.
But, here, the specific contention raised by the petitioners is that
although it was earlier let out, subsequently, the same is occupied by
the petitioners themselves. Therefore, both the ground floor and the
first floor having the same area occupied by the petitioners
themselves cannot be assessed to property tax differently. So also,
there is no explanation forthcoming for the assessment of lesser tax
in respect of s buildings having greater plinth area and better
construction. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that Exts.P8
and P13 are unsustainable. Accordingly, they are quashed. The
respondent is directed to re-consider the entire matter after affording
an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners taking into account all
O.P No.1861/1999. -: 3 :-
the circumstances narrated hereinbefore in this judgment. Fresh
orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. After
fresh assessment on remission, if any tax to be refunded, the same
shall be adjusted against future tax payable by the petitioners.
The original petition is allowed as above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/