IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 11359 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- GEORGE SAM, S/O. LATE T.V.SAMUEL, AGED 63, 14/1623, THALATHAYIL HOUSE, K.K.VISWANATHAN ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. MR.S.SREEKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.P.MARTIN JOSE MR.P.PRIJITH MR.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHI-11. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, KOCHI-11. ADV. MR.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11359 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: DOCUMENT NO.1218/2007 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.24760/2007 DTD. 20.2.2008 PASSED BY THIS COURT. EXT.P3: TAX PAID RECEIPT DTD. 18.9.2007 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, THOPPUMPADY. EXT.P4: PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DTD. 29.4.2010 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P5: POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD. 5.2.2011 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, THOPPUMPADY. EXT.P6: CERTIFICATE NO.1364/2011 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, THOPPUMPADY. EXT.P7: COMMUNICATION DTD. 15.3.2011 ISSUED BY R1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ..... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.11359 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 and for a direction compelling the respondents to change the property tax assessment of building No.14/1622 of Cochin Corporation in the name of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner owns and possesses an extent of 9.36 cents of land comprised in survey No.1044/1 of Mattancherry Village together with a residential building therein bearing door No.14/1622 of Corporation of Cochin. Ext.P1 is the copy of the title deed dated 2.3.2007. The petitioner submits that pursuant to execution of sale deed in his favour mutation was effected and the petitioner is paying building tax to the Government. The petitioner submits that due to an inadvertent omission the existence of old building No.XIV/1622 of Cochin Corporation was not mentioned in Ext.P1. It is pointed out that the building was constructed several decades back, that he obtained title and possession in respect of the property and the old building therein ::2:: W.P.(C).No.11359 Of 2011 by virtue of the sale deed produced in this case and marked as Ext.P1. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has been paying land tax to the Government and property tax to the 1st respondent. True copies of the receipts for payment of land tax and property tax to the 1st respondent are marked as Exts.P3 & P4. 3. The petitioner submitted an application dated 25.11.2010 for changing the property tax assessment for the building bearing door No.14/1622 in his name. The respondent Corporation directed the petitioner to produce the supporting documents for the purpose of making changes in the property tax assessment register. Ext.P5 is the copy of the possession certificate issued by the Village Officer certifying that the property claimed by the petitioner is in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. Ext.P6 is the copy of another certificate issued by the Village Officer certifying that the aforementioned property and the building bearing door No.14/1622 are in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. The Corporation rejected the application by ::3:: W.P.(C).No.11359 Of 2011 communication dated 15.3.2011 marked as Ext.P7. The reason stated for rejecting the application was that the building was not included in Ext.P1 document and therefore, the petitioner was asked to produce documents to show that the building belongs to him and that the building in the property is covered by Ext.P1. Ext.P6 certificate issued by the Village Officer would show that the building bearing No.14/1622 is situated in the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. Ext.P5 possession certificate would also shows that the petitioner is the owner and is in enjoyment of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. 4. During the course of final hearing on 8.8.2011, this Court issued an interim order directing the 1st respondent to depute a competent officer to enquire and report whether the petitioner is in possession of the building in the property and whether the petitioner is in possession of the building situated in the property and to report whether he was in possession of the property from the date of Ext.P1 sale deed. This Court directed the 1st respondent to submit a report within two weeks. Pursuant to the interim order, respondents 1 & 2 submitted an additional ::4:: W.P.(C).No.11359 Of 2011 statement dated 15.10.2011 stating that in compliance with the above said direction an inspection was conducted by the Revenue Inspector on 25.8.2011 and that the inspection revealed the fact that the building bearing door No.14/1622 is in the possession of George Sam from 2.3.2007 onwards. 5. For the aforesaid reasons and materials discussed above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances, Ext.P7 order is quashed. A direction is issued to respondents 1 & 2 to change the property tax assessment of building bearing door No.14/1622 of Cochin Corporation in the name of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-