IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 20832 of 2005(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.C.SUHARA, 12/1214. AL AMIN, PANAYAPPILLY, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.SONIYA.M SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE DEPUTY SECRETARY. ZONAL OFFICE, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI 2. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.N.M.MOHAMMED AYUB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C).No.20832/2005 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 24/8/1992 REGARDING THE COLLAPSE OF BUILDINGS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LEDGER BOOK SHOWING ACKNOW- LEDGEMENT BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 SERIES: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 15/6/2005 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT OF BUILDINGS NOS. VI/1561 TO 1566 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 15/6/2005 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT OF BUILDINGS NO.V/131 OF THE PETITIONER. sP.R.RAMAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20832 OF 2005 ---------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner alleges that the buildings owned by her, namely VI/1561 to 1566 and V/131 of Cochin Corporation were very old and collapsed in the year 1992. Despite the information being conveyed to the Corporation as early as on 24/8/1992 and subsequently also. The intimation said to have been given to the Corporation is marked as Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 is stated to be the acknowledgement. Since the petitioner was under the bona fide belief that in such circumstances the buildings are exempted from payment of tax, no further action was taken in this behalf by the Corporation. But later in June 2005 she received notices demanding building tax of Rs.43,785/- for the years 1989-90 to 2004-05 in respect of the buildings VI/1561 to 1566 and Rs.41,126/- for the years 1987-88 to 2004-05 in respect of buildings V/131. Ext.P3 series and Ext.P4 are the demand notices. It is the case of the petitioner that the buildings are already collapsed and hence no building tax has been paid by her. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation it is denied that -2- W.P.(C).No.20832/2005 any such intimation was received from the petitioner like Ext.P1. They averred that the acknowledgement is only a self-serving document and not a postal acknowledegment and what is produced is Ext.P2 acknowledgement which does not contain the seal of the Corporation. The petitioner has not produced any material to substantiate her contention regarding the proof of service of Ext.P1 on the Corporation. But admittedly, Ext.R1(a) is a letter requesting tax exemption said to have been received by the Corporation from the petitioner. But the Corporation informed the petitioner that her request for exemption will be considered only if she remits the entire tax arrears as on date as contemplated by rules. But the petitioner maintained her stand that since she has already intimated by Ext.P1 that the buildings are not occupied, she cannot be insisted to pay the arrears of tax. There is no acceptable evidence to show the condition of the building. Though the petitioner would assail that she has sent Ext.P1 letter, it is stoutly denied by the Corporation in their counter affidavit. Ext.P2 acknowledgement admittedly is only a self serving document. If the petitioner had delivered a letter to the Corporation through any of her employees, she should have examined him or filed an affidavit. But no such attempt is made. Though subsequently a letter requesting tax exemption for the year 2005 onwards was given by -3- W.P.(C).No.20832/2005 the petitioner, that is not acted upon by the Corporation. In the factual situation, the proper course open to this Court is to dispose of the writ petition on the following lines: If the petitioner remits 50% of the amount under demand within one month from today, a competent Inspector of the Corporation shall be deputed to inspect the condition of the building and report the same. Petitioner shall be given an opportunity to prove that the building was not occupied by adducing evidence in that regard. What type of evidence the petitioner could adduce to prove that the building was not occupied is a matter for him to decide. If the buildings were occupied by the tenants earlier, the date on which the tenants got vacated, if there was any electricity connection, having due regard to the condition of the building whether electricity was dismantled, if there is any pipe connection, whether the pipe connection was dismantled, whether there is any other service to the buildings by any other statutory authorities and what is the situation thereto are all matters which possibly one could adduce evidence and convincingly prove the condition of the building. It can only be said that such an opportunity be given to the petitioner and after considering such evidence that may be adduced by the petitioner, the matter may be decided by the Secretary of Cochin Corporation. -4- W.P.(C).No.20832/2005 If the petitioner does not comply with the above direction, it will be open to the Corporation to proceed in accordance with law. The amount, if paid as directed above, will however be adjustable against any tax, if any, payable by the petitioner and will be subjected to the final orders to be passed by the Secretary, Corporation of Cochin. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. kcv.