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. 3906 of 2006(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.V. RAJESH, S/O. VENU, AGED 25 YEARS, RAJESH VILLA, VELIYATHUNADU, KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK. 2. P.V. RAGESH, S/O. VENU, AGED 24 YEARS, RAJESH VILLA, VELIYATHUNADU, KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BABU SRI.M.P.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PARAVOOR TALUK, NORTH PARAVUR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORTKOCHI. 4. THIS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND FOR R1TOR4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.892/2000. P2: TRUE COPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO 1ST PETITIONER. P3: .DO. 2ND PETITIONER. P4: TRUE COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO 1ST PETITIONER. P5: .DO. 2ND PETITIONER. P6: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.2.11.2001 ISSUED BY R2. P7: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.2.11.2001 ISSUED BY R2. P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.31.1.2002 OF R3. P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.7.6.2004 OF R2. P10: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.18.7.2005 OF R4. P11: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.7.12.2005 ISSUED BY R2. P12: TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S. NO.808/2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.3906 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are challenging single assessment of a three storied building under the Kerala Building Tax Act on the ground that specific portions of the building are owned by petitioners. However, it is seen that land is in the name of both the petitioners together and they have not effected any partition between them. It is clear form the sketch produced in court that the building consists of two shop rooms in the ground floor with a toilet and it has upstair also. Obviously the building is a single commercial building, though owned by petitioners together. Assessment can be made separately only if building consists of separate residential or commercial apartments. However, if the building is a single one, though consisting of different shop rooms let out to or used by different parties, it has to be assessed as a single building even though different persons own the same. Therefore, there is nothing illegal or wrong in making a single assessment of the building owned by petitioners together. The W.P.(C) is therefore devoid of any merit and is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms