IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 1482 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- 1. SANTHARAM SHENOY P., S/O.N..SHENOY, AGED 42, CC 8/6011),TOWN HALL ROAD, KOCHI-2. 2. S.SREEKALA, W/O.SANTHARAM SHENOY P., AGED CC 8/601(1), TOWN HALL ROAD, KOCHI-2. BY ADV. MR. G.KRISHNAKUMAR MR. M.MANOJ KUMAR MALLIA MR. P.H.SHAJI (THRIKKAKARA) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE R.D.O., FORT KOCHI, KOCHI. 2. TAHSILDAR, KOCHI TALUK, FORT KOCHI. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON 01/12/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 1482 OF 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLETED PLAN APPROVED BY THE COCHIN CORPORATION. EXT. P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY COCHIN CORPORATION EXT. P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.07.03 OF 1ST PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXT. P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT DATE 02.05.2005 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT. P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 28.12.2007 ISSUE BY THE CORPORATION BANK EXT. P6 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUE BY THE COCHIN CORPORATION DATED 13.10.2004 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S BUILDING. EXT. P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE COCHIN CORPORATION DATED 17.11.2004 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S BUILDING EXT. P8 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 17.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDEN EXT. P9 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM PREFERRED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P10 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT. P11 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 16.02.2004 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN CORPORATION. EXT. P12 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE RATION CARD. EXT. P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT PERTAINING TO THE BUILDING C.C. 8/601 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN CORPORATION. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 1482 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 01st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners, who are husband and wife, are aggrieved of the assessment finalized by the concerned authorities under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, particularly with regard to the assessment under Section 5 imposing the building tax and also the consequential proceedings under Section 5 A. 2. The specific case of the petitioners is that, the buildings concerned are two separate structures situated in two different premises owned by the husband and wife separately, which ought not to have been reckoned as 'single unit' for the propose of assessment under any circumstances. It is stated that the husband purchased the property as per the settlement deed No. 2407/03, wherein no building was there at the time of purchase and the husband constructed the building in the year 2004. In the case of the other property owned by the wife of the first petitioner i.e. second petitioner, it was obtained as per the title deed bearing No 5139 of 2004, wherein a building was already in existence bearing door No. CC 8/601 and this building was there right from 1973 onwards. With regard to the construction of the first petitioner's building, the same has been effected on the basis of Ext. P1 plan obtained in the name of the first W.P. (C) No. 1482 of 2010 2 petitioner himself and Ext. P2 occupancy certificate has been issued clearly pointing out that it is having only an extent of 182.52 sq.m. The said building has been constructed by the first petitioner in such a manner that it is placed so close to the existing building in the name of the second petitioner/wife in the property covered by document No. 5139 of 2004, which does not tilt the balance in any manner so as to classify the two buildings as a 'single unit'. It is contended that, since the buildings are owned by the petitioners separately, in the two different properties owned, possessed and enjoyed by them, they cannot be treated and assessed as a 'single unit' and that the assessment has to be finalized treating them separately. In spite of the factual position as above, the assessment authority finalized the assessment, imposing a huge liability, treating the two buildings as 'single unit', against which statutory appeal was preferred by the petitioner. 3. In the course of the proceedings pending before the appellate authority, the petitioner produced all the relevant documents to substantiate the contentions. However without any proper regard to the facts and figures, the appellate authority declined interference, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits, with reference to the materials on record, that, in the course of the W.P. (C) No. 1482 of 2010 3 proceedings, the nature of the building was actually got verified by the concerned Tahasildar, who conducted a spot inspection, when it was revealed that the building was a 'single unit' and that the plan for constructing the building was in the name of the first petitioner. However, the specific averments raised from the part of the petitioner that the buildings were having two separate door numbers, two separate access and such other vital particulars have not been chosen to be rebutted, but for the observations made in Ext. P10 that the building has been constructed as a 'single unit'. Even going by Ext. P10, it is seen that some confusion was there with regard to the nature of the building, in so far as the appellate authority/first respondent has referred to the building as a “flat”, when nobody has a case that the petitioners constructed any flat in the property concerned. The learned Government Pleader also submits that if the petitioners are actually aggrieved of the verdict passed by the first respondent, there is a further remedy by way of revision as contemplated under Section 13 of the Act, by approaching the District Collector. 5. Considering the fact that there is a serious dispute with regard to the factual particulars and more so in view of the wrong reference made by the first appellate authority to the building as a 'flat' in Ext. P10, this Court finds it necessary to have the matter considered by the statutory authority. W.P. (C) No. 1482 of 2010 4 Since the matter was admitted by this Court on 15.01.2010, also granting interim order of 'status quo', this Court finds that, the petitioner can be relegated to file a revision petition under Section 13 and if any such revision petition is filed within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the same shall considered as valid and proper revision petition and it shall be dealt with and decided on merits, after causing a re- inspection/verification of the nature of the building by the revisional authority i.e. 3rd respondent. The petitioners shall produce all the relevant documents in support of the contentions before the revision authority; on which event, the same shall be considered and the matter shall be finalized as above, within a period of three months. Taking note of the fact that, the petitioner has satisfied a sum of ` 8,000/-, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 15.01.10, the third respondent shall consider whether any further amount is liable to be paid, to top up the figure, for meeting the statutory deposit of 50 % of the disputed liability, to entertain the revision petition as provided under the Act and if any deficit is there, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to have it rectified/satisfied accordingly. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd W.P. (C) No. 1482 of 2010 5