IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 1861 of 1999(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. C. SREEDHARA MENON, HOUSE NO.39/4041, RAVIPURAM ROAD, KOCHI - 682 016. 2. K.P. AMMINI AMMA, BUILDING NO. 39/4041, RAVIPURAM ROAD, KOCHI-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL, ADV. SRI.M.A.KADIR KUNJU. RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE COCHIN CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN CORPORATION, KOCHI - 682 011. BY SRI.S.RAMESH BABU,S.C,KOCHI CORPN. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 1861/1999-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SPECIAL NOTICE DTD. 29/02/1992 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.1.A: ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SPECIAL NOTICE DTD. 29/02/1992 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2.A: ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 04/07/1992 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21/01/1993 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.4.A: ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P.4. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.15/02/1993 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE SPECIAL NOTICE DTD. 11/06/1997 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.6.A: ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P.6. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28/09/1996 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE SPECIAL NOTICE DTD. 11/06/1997 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.8.A: ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P.8. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/08/1997 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/10/1997 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.10.A: ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P.10. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 01/11/1997 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/04/1998 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 26/08/1998 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.13.A: ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P.13. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 1861 of 1999 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners occupy a two storeyed building. The ground floor was rented out for which property tax was fixed by the respondent-Corporation as Rs. 773/- per half year. The first floor was occupied by the petitioners themselves for which tax fixed was Rs. 261/-. Subsequently, the ground floor also was occupied by the petitioners themselves and the fact was intimated to the respondent- Corporation. The petitioners have been served with Ext. P8 demand notice enhancing the tax from Rs. 773/- to Rs.968/- per half year. The petitioners' revision met with Ext. P10 order reducing it to Rs. 776/-. The petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by Ext. P13 order. The petitioners' contention is that both the ground floor and the first floor are of the same area and the same type of construction. Both are occupied by the owners themselves. That being so, the property tax cannot differ vastly as assessed. The petitioners further submit that in respect of adjacent buildings bearing Nos. 39/3494/4043, 39/3497/4046, 39/3495/4044 and 39/3496/4045 owned by others having plinth area of 930 sq. feet with mosaic flooring, the tax is only Rs. 340/-, whereas the petitioners' building having the plinth area of 750 sq. feet with red oxide flooring, assessed to property tax at Rs. 776/-. On the above grounds, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to compel the respondent Corporation to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law in respect of the ground-floor flat owned by the petitioners, bearing No. 39/4042; ii) to issue an order quashing Exhibit P8 notice and P13 order as illegal and arbitrary; iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, O.P No.1861/1999. -: 2 :- order or direction restraining the respondent from taking further steps pursuant to Exhibit P13 order.” 2. The learned counsel for the Corporation would submit that the difference in tax is on account of the fact that the ground floor was let out and the property tax was fixed on the basis of the rental value calculated on the basis of the rent received by the petitioners, whereas the first floor was occupied by the petitioners themselves for which the rental value was calculated as applicable to own occupied buildings. The respondent would therefore support the impugned orders. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed. It may be possible to support the contentions of the respondent, if the ground floor was let out and the first floor was occupied by the petitioners themselves. But, here, the specific contention raised by the petitioners is that although it was earlier let out, subsequently, the same is occupied by the petitioners themselves. Therefore, both the ground floor and the first floor having the same area occupied by the petitioners themselves cannot be assessed to property tax differently. So also, there is no explanation forthcoming for the assessment of lesser tax in respect of s buildings having greater plinth area and better construction. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that Exts.P8 and P13 are unsustainable. Accordingly, they are quashed. The respondent is directed to re-consider the entire matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners taking into account all O.P No.1861/1999. -: 3 :- the circumstances narrated hereinbefore in this judgment. Fresh orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. After fresh assessment on remission, if any tax to be refunded, the same shall be adjusted against future tax payable by the petitioners. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/