IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 12359 OF 2005(U) PETITIONER: ------------ S.SALILA BAI, W/O. G.RAMACHANDRAN, KAVERY, CHERUMOODU, PERINAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) SRI.H.RAMANAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 12359/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF RAGHUNATHAN PILLAI (TRUE COPY) DATED 11.7.2002. EXT.P2 BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF BABY (TRUE COPY), DATED 11.7.2002. EXT.P3 BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF ABDUL AZEEZ (TRUE COPY), DATED 11.7.2002. EXT.P4 OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF RAGHUNATHAN PILLAI (TRUE COPY), DATED 11.7.2002. EXT.P5 OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF BABY (TRUE COPY ), DATED 11.7.2002. EXT.P6 OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF ABDUL AZEEZ (TRUE COPY ), DATED 11.7.2002. EXT.P7 SALE DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER (TRUE COPY) DATED 18.7.2002. EXT.P8 REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S NOTICE (TRUE COPY) DATED 16.6.2003. EXT.P9 ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) DATED 24.11.2003. EXT.P10 DEMAND NOTICIE ISSUED BY THE 3ND RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY ) DATED 24.11.2003. EXT.P11 ORDER PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT REJECTING PETITIONER'S APPEAL (TRUE COPY) DATED 24.1.2004. EXT.P12 ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DISMISSING THE PETITIONER'S REVISION (TRUE COPY), DATED 8.3.2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN, J. = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 12359 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner purchased a building from three different owners as per Ext. P7 registered sale deed. Ext. P7 would show that the said three persons had earlier purchased the respective portions from erstwhile owners. Ext.P1 is an assessment made in respect of building No. PP 111/617/A to 617/L by the local panchayat and the assessee is one Reghunathan Pillai. Likewise, House No. PP III/617 Q to T is assessed in the name of one Baby and House No. PP III/627 M to 617 P is assessed in the name of one Abdul Azeez. Though it may appear that it is a line building, they are numbered separately by the local authority and were owned by three different persons. Petitioner happened to be the sole buyer of all the three portions. According to her, since the building was owned by three different persons as evidenced by Ext.P1 to P3, they cannot be clubbed in her hands for the purpose of assessment of building tax. All the three portions were owned and possessed by three different owners and they were assessed to building tax by the local authority under the Panchayat Act, WP(C) 12359/2005 :2: separately. There is no reason, therefore, to treat the entire building owned by three different persons as one building. The question as to whether the building consists of several portions should be treated as one building or different buildings will depend upon several factors. If different persons have constructed the building with their own funds and it was purchased after construction by a single person , then the buildings are to be treated as separate. The question is, at the time of construction, whether it was owned by one person or different person. In this case, the materials would show that the building was owned and possessed in true ownership by three different persons and the portions were numbered separately. Therefore, they are to be treated as three separate buildings for the purpose of tax liability. 2. Petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 45,900/-. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Tahsildar to re-assess the building in the light of what is stated above and the excess amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. The assessments Ext.P9 is quashed. The Tahsildar will re- determine the area of the three buildings separately and the amount paid by the petitioner should be adjusted towards the same and the balance amount to be paid will be intimated to the petitioner. This shall be done within WP(C) 12359/2005 :3: three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent for information and compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) knc/-