IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24777 of 2005(Y)
1. M.G. GEORGE MUTHOOT, S/O. M.GEORGE,
... Petitioner
2. GEORGE THOMAS MUTHOOT, S/O. M.GEORGE,
3. GEORGE JACOB MUTHOOT, S/O.M.GEORGE,
4. M.G. GEORGE ALEXANDER MUTHOOT,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :21/07/2008
O R D E R
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 24777 OF 2005
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are challenging assessment and demand of building
tax in respect of a building having a plinth area of 1168.95 sq. metres.
According to the petitioners, building consists of different units and
each of the petitioners owns separate portion. Their specific case is
that construction cost was shared by them for the construction of the
building and so much so Explanation II to Section 2(e) of the Building
Tax Act is applicable warranting separate assessment of each unit in
the name of each of the petitioners. The issued cropped up only
because the Tahsildar issued Ext.P3 assessment in prescribed format
without considering petitioners’ claim. Separate assessment is
warranted only if the building consists of separate residential or
commercial apartments. It is not known whether the building consists
of different independent units whether residential or commecial. If
building is a single unit, then irrespective of whether cost is shared by
petitioners or not, it has to be assessed as a single unit. However, if the
2
building consists of different independent units and if such
construction is made by petitioners by sharing the cost, separate
assessment is called for under Explanation II to Section 2(e) of the Act.
It is seen that after receipt of assessment in the prescribed format
petitioners filed an application under Section 15 of the Act vide Ext.P4
raising contention that building has to be assessed in the name of each
of the petitioners. Considering the nature of claim of the petitioners, I
dispose of the W.P. directing the Tahsildar to conduct inspection of the
building and first verify whether the building consists of different
residential or commercial units and if so to assess the building in the
name of respective owners. On the other hand, if the building is a
single unit, Tahsildar will assess the building as a single unit in the
joint names of petitioners who are joint owners, irrespective of whether
the cost was shared by them or not. In other words, mere sharing of
cost of construction and the partition of the building do not justify
independent assessment of a single building. Tahsildar is directed to
complete the adjudication proceedings afresh in the light of the above
observations, after hearing the petitioners, within a period of three
3
months from now. Petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment
before the Tahsildar for compliance. The amount paid by the
petitioners will be adjustied towards tax assessed under revised orders
and balance, if any due, will be recovered from the petitioners.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk
4