IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 28873 of 2003(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAJI S/O. VARKEY, THANNITTAMACKAL HOUSE, CHITTOORKARA, MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI. 3. TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA. 4. V.J.ALEXANDER, VATTUKALAM, BUILDING NO.122 WARD NO.X, THODUPUZHA. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 18.11.1996 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.10.2002 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 31.3.2003 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 30.8.2003 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.8.2001 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 1.10.2001 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.6.2002 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 22.3.2003 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 28873 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. Petitioner is challenging single assessment of a building constructed by petitioner along with fourth respondent in two pieces of land separately owned by both of them. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the total constructed area of the building is 756 sq. metres out of which 133.67 sq. metres only belong to the petitioner. Admittedly building consists of shop rooms four in numbers belonging to the petitioner and six in numbers belonging to the fourth respondent. There is a common stair-case in between shop rooms which according to the petitioner, partitions the building between the portion owned by him and the portion owned by fourth respondent. 2. Contention of counsel for the petitioner that building should be assessed separately based on Municipal records assigning separate numbers cannot be accepted because all the shop rooms constitute one single building, no matter Municipality has given separate numbers or not. Separate assessment of a building is called for only under Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Act which provides for separate 2 assessment of apartment building consisting of separate apartments cost of which is shared by owners together. In this case, each shop room cannot be treated as a separate building. On the other hand, it is a single building which consists of different shop rooms with a common staircase used by both the parties. Separate ownership of pieces of land has no relevance after construction of single building in the property jointly owned by petitioner and fourth respondent. In the circumstances, I do not think petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Act. However, building tax is to be borne by petitioner and fourth respondent in a proportionate manner that is in proportion to the sq. area of building owned by both of them. Third respondent is therefore directed to bifurcate the liability in proportion to the sq. area owned by petitioner and fourth respondent and issue separate demand notice to petitioner and fourth respondent for them to make payment. In the event of default by any of them, the dafauter's portion of building only can be attached and sold. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3