IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22622 of 2004(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ BIJU T.GEORGE, KUMARATHUKUDIYIL HOUSE (THOPPIL), KALIYAR, VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.A.V.THOMAS SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).22622/2004-R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.A3.2693/83 DATED 26/07/1984 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA ALONGWITH NOTICE OF DEMAND. EXT.P2: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.A3.12395/83 DATED 06/10/1996 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA ALONGWITH NOTICE OF DEMAND. EXT.P3: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.C2.18989/97 DATED 13/03/2002 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THOUDPUZHA ALONGWITH NOTICE OF DEMAND. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 15/04/2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/06/2003 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 25/07/2003 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/06/2004 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C). No.22622/2004-R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's mother was the owner of 17.500 cents of land which was purchased as per Sale Deed No.3561/80 of Karikkode SRO. She constructed a single storied commercial building consisting of shop rooms in the said property and, later it was assessed to building tax as per Ext.P1. The building is having separate building number issued by the Panchayat. She constructed another single storied building comprising of shop rooms. That was also assessed to building tax as per Ext.P2 and the Panchayat has also allotted separate building numbers to the said building. After her death, the petitioner along with his father constructed first floor of the two buildings. It is the case of the petitioner that both of them constructed the two buildings by contributing equal share towards construction cost. As per Ext.P3, an order of assessment has been passed clubbing both the buildings as a single unit. This was challenged in appeal before the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed as per W.P.(C).NO.22622/2004-R -:2:- Ext.P5. Even though revision petition was filed, that was also dismissed by Ext.P7. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The contentions raised by the petitioner are two fold, viz. that the two buildings were constructed by the petitioner and his father jointly by contributing equally towards construction cost and that the buildings have to be assessed separately as they are independent units. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court reported in Lalitha v.State of Kerala [1994 (2) KLT 66]. 3. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is averred therein that the building was inspected by the Charge Officer on 25/01/2002 and going by his report, the first floor of the building has two portions separated by distance of 5cms and two portions of plinth area of 187.86 m2 and 265.98m2 respectively. The said two portions are constructed on separate pillars. 4. The question whether the two buildings are separate has not been considered by the appellate authority or the revisional authority properly and even going by the assessment order, it does not appear that these aspects have been considered. The buildings originally constructed (ground floor) were assessed separately and since the case pleaded is that only the first floor of W.P.(C).NO.22622/2004-R -:3:- the two buildings have been constructed by the petitioner and his father jointly by contributing equal share towards construction cost and that the same cannot be assessed as single unit, it is a crucial aspect which requires detailed consideration at the hands of the assessing authority itself. In that view of the matter, the orders Exts.P3, P5 and P7 are hereby quashed. The assessing authority will re-examine the matter after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. The petitioner will file his detailed objection stating the grounds which he relies upon within a period of one month from today, and the assessing authority will consider the matter on merits and pass final orders within a period of four months thereafter. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms