IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 4296 of 2001(J) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. A.MARAKKAR HAJI, S/O.KUCHIRI HAJI, RESIDING IN TIRUR AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O. PAKKAGIL, PIN 676 107 TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. A.KUNHAMMED, -DO- -DO- 3. A.SUHARA, -DO- -DO- 4. A.SUBAIDA, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR(MOHANKUMAR ASSOCIATES SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI K.P.PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.7096/2001 IN O.P NO.4296/2001 CLOSED SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 07/01/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19/06/1999 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/11/1999 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.REF:N1/49300/99 DATED 28/3/2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20/12/2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. \\TRUE COPY// C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O.P.No. 4296 of 2001 (J) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging common assessment of a commercial building constructed by them. It is submitted that partition was affected among the petitioners only after completion of construction. Moreover, building consists of different shop rooms and are not separate apartments as such. Assessment has to be revised under Section 5(4) on completion of the construction of the building and since the building is a single one though with different rooms, the single assessment is perfectly in order. Petitioners cannot ask for separate assessment based on partition after construction. The contention on this ground is therefore baseless and is, therefore, rejected. 2. However, counsel for the petitioners submitted that while making assessment, revised rate introduced with effect from 29/07/1996 is applied. He contended that rate of tax to be levied is O.P.No.4296/2001-J -: 2 :- at the rate in force as on the date of completion of the construction of the building. If the petitioner completed the construction of the building before 29/07/1996, then only the pre-revised rate has to be applied. The fourth respondent is directed to revise and refix tax as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms