IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27166 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V. BASHEER, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. POKKU, LIBERTY TALKIES AND KALYANA MANDAPAM, THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SMT.P.VANDANA SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVANGAD - 670 101. 2. THAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THALASSERY - 670 101. 3. REVEUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY - 670 101. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR - 670 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27166 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO. 1618/1978 DATED 09/06/1978 OF SR0, THALASSERY. EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 24/05/1993 TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 06/09/1996 TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2008 BEARING NO. TMC 25/458 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04/04/2008 TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN F 3565/2008 BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY. EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G1/2010/45555/13 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab S.SIRI JAGAN, J ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.27166 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the present owner of a building. The building was not constructed by him. He purchased the constructed building along with the property. Now proceedings have been initiated to recover the building tax payable in respect of the property under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The petitioner challenges the same. 2. The petitioner's contention is that it is the person who constructed the building who is liable to pay building tax and subsequent purchaser is not liable to pay the same. Therefore, the respondents should proceed against the original owner who constructed the building and not the petitioner is his contention. The petitioner submits that this position of law has been made clear by this Court in Ummerkutty V. State of Kerala (1994 (1) KLT 781). The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or declaring that assessment of building tax made by respondents No.2 is illegal and unconstitutional and is liable to be quashed. W.P(C) No.27166 of 2011 2 ii) issue a writ or mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to refrain from proceeding against the petitioner for realisation of the amount by Revenue Recovery Proceedings threatened to be initiated against the petitioner; iii) issue an interim order staying all further proceedings including Revenue Recovery Proceedings for realising the building tax assessed against the petitioner till disposal of the Writ Petition; iv) to set aside Exts.P5, P6 and P7 order of respondents No.2, 3 and 4 which is illegal and unconstitutional which are liable to be quashed; v) to remand the entire matter to the 2nd respondent, Tahsildar for reassessment on the basis of the evidence pleadings and grounds revised; vi) to grant such other reliefs as may be deemed just and proper.” 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is liable to fail on two counts. The first is that the petitioner has not chosen to implead the former owner who according to the petitioner is the person liable to pay building tax. Apart from the same, as per Section 5 of the Kerala Building Tax Act the building tax is payable by the owner of the building, which can be either the owner who constructed the building or the present owner. In fact that has been made abundantly clear in Ummerkutty's case (supra) relied on by the petitioner. In that decision it was W.P(C) No.27166 of 2011 3 specifically held that apart from the original owner others are also liable including the current owner. That being so, the petitioner cannot escape the liability to pay building tax if the same is in arrears. Of course it would be open to the petitioner to recover from the original owner if the contract between them provides for the same. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to recover the building tax from the original owner, if paid by the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE ab