IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 834 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27967/2009 Dated 20/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): / RESPONDENTS IN WP(C) -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER , FORT COCHIN. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR (KANAYANNUR TALUK) BY MR.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): / PETITIONER IN WP(C) --------------- M/S. SOUTHERN FISHERIES CORPORATION REP BY ITS PARTNER MRS. ANILA KURIAKOSE JACOB, NETHRA BHAVAN, COCHIN-16. ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.R. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A.No.834 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the Writ Appeal is covered by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala reported in 2009(1) KLT 295, where the learned Single Judge followed another Single Bench judgment to hold that covered terrace area does not become part of the plinth area of a building for assessment. Even though learned Government Pleader submitted that the building in this case is a commercial building whereas the case decided by this Court in the above referred judgment pertains to residential building, we do not think there is any difference between residential and commercial buildings for the purpose of assessment of building tax, which is on the plinth area of building. W.A.No.834/2010 -2- We endorse the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment in Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala reported in 2009(1) KLT 295 and declare that unless the roof terrace is enclosed, the same cannot be treated as plinth area for assessment. In other words, mere covering of roof to protect the building from rain and sun does not make the terrace as part of plinth area for assessment whether the building is residential or commercial. Consequently, we dismiss the Writ Appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) jg