IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 24777 of 2005(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. M.G. GEORGE MUTHOOT, S/O. M.GEORGE, MUTHOOT HOUSE, KOZHANCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. GEORGE THOMAS MUTHOOT, S/O. M.GEORGE, MUTHOOT HOUSE, KOZHANCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 3. GEORGE JACOB MUTHOOT, S/O.M.GEORGE, MUTHOOT HOUSE, KOZHANCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 4. M.G. GEORGE ALEXANDER MUTHOOT, S/O. M.GEORGE, MUTHOOT HOUSE, KOZHANCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) SMT.A.A.GEETHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY (ASSESSING AUTHORITY), KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DEED NO. 3981 OF 2002 DATED 10.10.2002 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS DATED 15.12.2002 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT NO. 14966/04 PASSED BY THIRD RESPONDENT AGAINST MANAGING PARTNER, MUTHOOOT CHAMBERS, DATED 7.12.2004 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT 1975 DATED 15.3.2005 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF THE FIRST INSTALMENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE AS PER EXT.P3 DATED 23.12.2004 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR EARLY HEARING OF EXT.P4 DATED 16.8.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 24777 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are challenging assessment and demand of building tax in respect of a building having a plinth area of 1168.95 sq. metres. According to the petitioners, building consists of different units and each of the petitioners owns separate portion. Their specific case is that construction cost was shared by them for the construction of the building and so much so Explanation II to Section 2(e) of the Building Tax Act is applicable warranting separate assessment of each unit in the name of each of the petitioners. The issued cropped up only because the Tahsildar issued Ext.P3 assessment in prescribed format without considering petitioners' claim. Separate assessment is warranted only if the building consists of separate residential or commercial apartments. It is not known whether the building consists of different independent units whether residential or commecial. If building is a single unit, then irrespective of whether cost is shared by petitioners or not, it has to be assessed as a single unit. However, if the 2 building consists of different independent units and if such construction is made by petitioners by sharing the cost, separate assessment is called for under Explanation II to Section 2(e) of the Act. It is seen that after receipt of assessment in the prescribed format petitioners filed an application under Section 15 of the Act vide Ext.P4 raising contention that building has to be assessed in the name of each of the petitioners. Considering the nature of claim of the petitioners, I dispose of the W.P. directing the Tahsildar to conduct inspection of the building and first verify whether the building consists of different residential or commercial units and if so to assess the building in the name of respective owners. On the other hand, if the building is a single unit, Tahsildar will assess the building as a single unit in the joint names of petitioners who are joint owners, irrespective of whether the cost was shared by them or not. In other words, mere sharing of cost of construction and the partition of the building do not justify independent assessment of a single building. Tahsildar is directed to complete the adjudication proceedings afresh in the light of the above observations, after hearing the petitioners, within a period of three 3 months from now. Petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment before the Tahsildar for compliance. The amount paid by the petitioners will be adjustied towards tax assessed under revised orders and balance, if any due, will be recovered from the petitioners. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4