IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 8869 of 2006(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.N. VISWANATHAN, `AISWARYA', PUNNAPRA NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE RDO DATED 9.3.2004 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 19.8.2004 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DATED 20.10.2004 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED NIL EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX REMITTED IN THE PANCHAYATH DATED 13.9.2004 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 12.5.2005 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT DATED 4.5.2001 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT DATED 10.9.2004 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30.3.2005 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 13.2.2006 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 8869 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. Even though petitioner raised a contention that third floor of the building is a residential house, Government Pleader submitted that petitioner filed return declaring the entire building as commercial. If the building is designed for use as commercial building, then it has to be assessed under the category "other building", even though a portion is occupied by the petitioner temporarily for residential purpose. Since petitioner himself has conceded in the return that full building is for commercial use, there is no scope for interference with assessment. W.P. is accordingly closed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2