IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20687 of 2003(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.B.SOORYA, AGED 18, D/O.A.K.BABU, ALUMPARAMBIL, KARUMALOOR P.O., KARUMALOOR VILLAGE, PARUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TAHASILDAR (ASSESSING AUTHORITY), TALUK OFFICE, PARUR. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHIN. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUMALOOR VILLAGE, KARUMALOOR P.O., PARUR TALUK. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFFIQ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON I.A. NO. 7587 OF 2003 IN WPC 20687 OF 2003 DISMISSED 6.8.2009 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.12.88 BY THE KARUMALOOR PANCHAYATH. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 23.2.88 ISSUED BY THE LICENSING AUTHORITY FOR SELLING CEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.11.2002 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 6.1.2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT FOR PAYMENT OF 1ST INSTALMENT OF BUILDING TAX. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2003 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN EXT.P5 APPEAL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 20687 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext. P3 assessment and demand of building tax in respect of a commercial building comprising of two floors. Petitioner's case is that ground floor was constructed in 1987 and the first floor was constructed in 1999 after a gap of 12 years. However, since the ground floor was not assessed to building tax, the Tahsildar assessed the plinth area of the entire building with ground floor and first floor and demanded tax which got confirmed in appeal. WPC is filed challenging the same. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondents. After hearing both sides and after going through the records, I find ground floor was constructed well before the appointed day and therefore it has to be assessed at the pre-existing rate under Section 5(2) before it's amendment vide Finance Act of 1993. In fact, the newly introduced provision is declared invalid by this Court, and therefore it is for the petitioner to opt for assessment on plinth area 2 basis or the ground floor should be assessed on capital value basis by the Tahsildar. Since ground floor was constructed before the appointed day, that is 10.2.1992, the plinth area of the upstair cannot be clubbed with the plinth area of the ground floor for assessment. On the other hand, first floor has to be separately assessed after verifying the plinth area. O.P. is therefore disposed of vacating the orders of Tahsildar and that of the RDO with direction to the Tahsildar to assess ground floor and first floor as stated above after issuing notice to the petitioner and after verification of the plinth area of the first floor. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3