IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 2582 of 2007 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.6577/1998 Dated 06/02/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR (ASSESSING AUTHORITY). 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K.R.PRADEEP. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. P.P.POULOSE, SRAMBICKAL, PALLATHITTAYIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. P.P.JOHN, SRAMBICKAL, PALLATHITTAYIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. P.P.VARGHESE, SRAMBICKAL, PALLATHITTAYIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. P.P.MATHAI, SRAMBICKAL, PALLATHITTAYIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.A. NO.2582 of 2007 ----------------------------------- DATED:MARCH 11, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in OP No.6577/1998. The challenge in the writ petition was against the order passed by the assessing authority under the Building Tax Act assessing the building said to be owned and possessed by the petitioners. The main contention raised in the writ petition was that the appellate authority rejected the contention of the appellants holding that sec.2(e) of the Building Tax Act applies only to flats and apartments and not to the type of building in question. There was another contention viz. that the agreement between the parties is not registered. On both counts this court found that the order cannot be sustained. It was found that sec.2(e) cannot be confined to a flat or apartment alone, and for that purpose the decision of this court in 2002 (2) KLJ 970 was followed. As regards the agreement is W.A. NO.2582 of 2007 :2: concerned, having due regard to the nature of the agreement in question, it is found that it is not compulsory that such an agreement should be registered. 2. The State has come up in appeal and the only point pressed into service is that while directing the assessing officer to reconsider the matter, the question as to whether, as a matter of fact, the buildings are separated by walls or that it satisfies to be separate buildings within the meaning of the Act be left open. 3. We have heard the parties. 4. Since the order passed by the authorities below is only on the question regarding the interpretation of sec.2 (e) and also holding that the agreement requires no registration, both being questions of law, neither the authorities below nor the learned Single Judge has gone to the facts of the case. In the circumstances the remand order shall not in any way be understood as taking away the jurisdiction of the authority in considering the factual situation present in the case and to see whether it should be assessed individually or separately. Clarifying the position that merely because it is not a flat or an W.A. NO.2582 of 2007 :3: apartment, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit to exclude the type of building outside the purview of sec.2 (e). 5. Secondly, merely because the agreement is not registered, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit. However, whether the building is one or separate with particular reference to each such building, whether separated by walls and numbered separately etc. are matters which the authority can consider after due notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Subject to what is stated above, this writ appeal is disposed of. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mt/-