IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 249 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19374/2007 Dated 04/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. V.P.CHERIYA YOOUSUF MASTER , S/O.VALIYAPEEDIKAKKAL KUNHI MARAKKAR, ARAKKUPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED YASIR, S/O.CHERIYA YOOSUF MASTER, ARAKKUPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT/. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, THAZHEKODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 249 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. The question to be considered is whether the building calls for separate assessments on account of ownership of different portions by the sons of the appellant along with him. The finding of the District Collector in the revisional order is as follows: On a detailed examination of the file, it is after the completion of the construction of the building, the Jenm sale deed was executed in the name of four children on 26.5.2005. The above act is made with a deliberate action to get exemption from the building tax. From the sketch produced as directed it is seen that the building is a single one. It is not seen separate entrance, kitchen and staircase separately. As per the sketch submitted there is only one kitchen. .... It is obvious from the above finding that the building is one single residential unit though appellant has assigned different portions to different children to get over tax liability. Statute authorises only one 2 assessment for a single unit. Even the alternate contention that original plinth area is to be excluded on extension of the plinth area of the building is also not tenable because Section 5(4) authorises assessment of building afresh after plinth area is extended. In fact appellants are only entitled to rebate of tax for the old portion which in this case does not apply because original portion was not subjected to building tax assessment. Writ Appeal is consequently dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk 3