IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 28652 of 2002(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. FRANCIS KURIAN, KUZHIAMPARAMBIL, THELLAKAM, KOTTAYAM. 2. LUCY FRANCIS, W/O. FRANCIS KURIAN, OF -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, KOTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP R2 AND R3 BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP48652 OF 2002 IN OP 28652 OF 2002 DISMISSED 8.2.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 SERIES TRUE COPIES OF NOTICES DATED 25.7.2000 ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT T 0 HE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2 SERIES TRUE COPIES OF NOTICES DATED 18.12.2000 ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P3 SERIES TRUE COPIES OF RECEIPTS SHOWING PAYMENT OF TAX DATED 4.1.2001 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL PETITION DATED 4.1.2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNCIPAL COUNCIL, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 30.4.2002 ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.9.2002 OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 1.9.2002 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSONS WHO ARE OCCUPYING THE ROOMS GIVEN TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 28652 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioners and standing counsel appearing for the Municipality. Petitioners are challenging Ext.P5 order which is a revised building tax assessment issued by the Municipal Secretary based on orders in appeal issued by the Taxation and Finance Committee of the Council which heard the appeal. Petitioners' grievance is that Ext.P5 revised assessment is issued without hearing the petitioners. However, on going through Ext.P5 order, I find that revised order is perfectly justified because while making original assessment basement area was left out of assessment. Moreover, original assessment was completed without taking into account the importance of the location of the building, the probable rent the building will fetch and the actual rent at which the building was let out to parties like HDFC, North Malabar Gramin Bank, etc. In fact it is stated that one building given to HDFC was on a monthly rent of Rs. 16,560/- while another building given to North Malabar Gramin Bank 2 on a monthly rent of Rs. 18,800/-. In fact from the details of tax demanded, it is clear that a higher amount of tax is demanded only in respect of two buildings which are quite big and which are given on high rent as stated above. It is seen that assessment is based on rent received and therefore there is no scope for interference with the assessment in respect of building Nos.1477-A1 and 1477-A2. So far as other buildings are concerned it is seen that revised tax assessed ranges from Rs. 672/- to Rs. 1440/-. I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P5 issued by the Municipality. However, since O.P. is pending for the last five years, and next revision is due, there will be direction to the Municipal Secretary to consider change in circumstances, variation in rent, etc. for considering increase or reduction of tax for the next revision of tax. O.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3