IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20206 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. V.K. HANEEFA, S/O. KUNJAPPA. 2. T.A. KADEEJA, W/O. V.K. HANEEFA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 27/474, CHAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD-678 006. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SMT.G.GEETHISHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R3 TO 1ST PETITIONER DT.20.10.2000. P2: .DO. 2ND PETITIONER DT.20.10.2000. P3: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER DT.15.11.2000. P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R3 DT.21.12.2000. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R2 DT.16.5.2003. P6: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF REVISION DT.24.9.2003. P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R1 DT.26.5.2004. P8: TRUE COPY OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER DT.14.9.2004. P9: .DO. 2ND PETITIONER DT.14.9.2004. P9(a): .DO. .DO. P10: TRUE COPY OF LEDGER EXTRACT FROM 1.4.2003 TO 31.3.2004. P10(a): .DO. 1.4.2000 TO 31.3.2001. P11: TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE TWO ESTABLISHMENTS. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.20206 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are challenging order issued under Section 15 of the Building Tax Act rectifying building tax assessment earlier completed for the two buildings, one stated to be owned by the first petitioner and the other his wife, second petitioner herein. Even though petitioners contend that buildings are distinct and separate and are separately numbered, petitioners themselves have produced Ext.P11 photograph which shows that building is a single one, though partitioned as two units, one a Kalyanamandapam and the other a godown for the purpose of enjoyment. Separate assessment is called for only if buildings are separate and distinct. In this case the building is a combined one and separate assessment sought for is for each portion of the same building. There is no provision in the Act to divide a building for the purpose of assessment depending on nature of use of each portion. The fact that Municipality has issued separate door numbers which is given to even shop rooms, will not make any difference. The W.P. is therefore dismissed upholding the single assessment of the building in rectification proceedings. The amount paid should be credited 2 and balance amount only should be recovered from the petitioners. Moreover, if the building is owned by petitioners together, then assessment has to be in the joint names of petitioners. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms