IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 12480 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.C.RAMACHANDRAN,FLAT NO.A6,MEERA TOWERS ST.BENEDICT ROAD,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR,KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12480/2010 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED 18/2/1995. EXT.P1A. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED18/2/95. EXT.P1B. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED18/2/1995. EXT.P1C. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED18/2/1995. EXT.P1D. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED 18/2/1995. EXT.P1E. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED 24/6/1995. EXT.P1F. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED 11/3/1996. EXT.P1G. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED 11/3/1996. EXT.P1H. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED 11/3/1996. EXT.P1i. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED 11/3/1996. EXT.P1J. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED 11/3/1996. EXT.P1K. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED 11/3/1996. EXT.P1L. COPY OF THE RECEIT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX DATED 11/3/1996. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DT. 22/3/1994. EXT.P2A. COPY OF THE ASSIGNEMNT DEED DT. 2/11/995. EXT.P2B. COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 16/08/1996. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R1 DT. 31/5/2007. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY R1 DATED 29.1.2009 EXT.P4A. COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE BY THE R1 DT. 20/1/2009. WP(C) NO. 12480/2010 H EXT.P5. COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS. 97, 291/- DT. 09/03/2009. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THER 2 DT. 11/08/2009. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BEFORE THE R3 DATED 12/10/2009. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS. 97.275/- DT. 23/10/2009. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R3 DT. 13/1/2010. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R3 DT. 3/2/2010. / TRUE COPY / PS TO JUDGE. Tga P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 12480 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the assessment finalised under the relevant provisions of Kerala Building Tax Act, treating the building, which consists of different apartments owned, possessed and enjoyed by different persons as a 'single unit' fixing the liability upon the petitioner who was the owner of the land. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by virtue of the status of the petitioner as the owner of the land, building permit was actually obtained in the name of the petitioner. But the construction of the building complex was completed on the basis of the funds contributed by the different persons in favour of whom undivided interest in the land has been conveyed as per separate documents. 2. Eventhough the position was sought to be substantiated before the assessing authority, the liability was fixed upon the petitioner without any regard to the 'explanation II to section 2 (e)' of the Kerala Building Tax Act. This was subjected to challenge by filing an appeal before the 2nd respondent, after effecting the statutory deposit. However, interference was declined by the appellate authority vide Ext.P6 order dated 11.08.2009, holding that the petitioner had not produced the 2 WP(C) No. 12480/2010 necessary records/proof so as to sustain the benefit of 'explanation II to Section 2 (e)' of the Building Tax Act. This in turn was subjected to challenge further, by filing Ext.P7 revision petition before the 3rd respondent, who also did not interfere with the matter and the order passed by the appellate authority was confirmed, holding that no documents were produced by the petitioner to sustain the relief prayed for. The correctness and sustainability of the observations made by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have been subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition. The petitioner has produced various documents along with the Writ Petition, seeking to sustain his case, to have separate assessment as contemplated under 'explanation II to Section 2(e)' of the Act. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by the nature of contentions and also the materials on record, this Court finds that the matter requires to be re-considered more so, in accordance with law laid by this Court as per the decision reported in Bava Sons Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala [2007 (3) KLT 101]. Accordingly, Ext.P6 appellate order and Ext.P10 revisional order passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively are set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent for considering the appeal afresh. All the documents produced before this Court shall be produced by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent along with further documents, if any, in 3 WP(C) No. 12480/2010 support of the case within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On satisfying the said requirements, the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be considered afresh and appropriate orders shall be passed by the 2nd respondent with reference to the pleadings and documents to be produced by the petitioner and the other materials on record and also with reference to the observations made by this Court in the decision cited supra. Final orders as above shall be passed by the 2nd respondent after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance till such final orders are passed by the appellate authority as aforesaid. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc