IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5433 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMADALI, S/O.MUHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 39 YEARS, THOTTILANGARA HOUSE, PAINGOTTUPURAM, KUNNAMANGALAM POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTIKATTUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 5433 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd February , 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in this case is whether the assessment finalized by the third respondent and confirmed by the second respondent, treating the entire building consisting of the 'residential portion' as well as the 'commercial portion' as 'other building' imposing a higher rate of tax, is correct or sustainable and whether the building should have been separately assessed in respect of the different portions as aforesaid, by virtue of law declared by this Court on the point. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the dictum in Sukumaran vs. Tahsildar (1999 (2) KLT 373) and Jameela vs. Tahsildar (2003 (3) KLT 979) submits that the proceedings pursued and finalized against the petitioner are per se wrong and illegal. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who W.P.(C) No. 5433 OF 2010 2 submits after verification of the facts and figures and also the binding judicial precedents that, there is considerable force in the above submission. 4. Accordingly, the impugned orders Exts.P1 and P4 are hereby set aside. The third respondent is directed to re-consider the matter with regard to different extents of plinth area, forming the 'residential portion' and 'commercial portion', separately and to finalise the assessment in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On finalization of the proceedings as above, if it is found that any excess payment has already been effected by the petitioner, the same shall be returned to the petitioner within one month thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk