IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 15641 of 2002(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.KUNHAMMAD, S/O.ABDULRAHIMAN, RESIDING AT PARAYANGANAM, PALLIKKARE VILLAGE, P.O.MOUVAL, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 15641/2002-K: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DTD. NIL. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DTD. 07/01/2002. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER DTD. 28/05/2002. EXT.P.5.SERIES: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OF PAYMENT FOR THREE INSTALLMENTS OF THE BUILDING TAX. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.15641 of 2002-K - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the assessment order under the Building Tax Act which stands confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority and by the revisional authority. The building in question is constructed in a separate property owned by the petitioner and his wife Kadeeja. It is stated that pursuant to the consent letter given by her, permit was obtained from the Panchayat for constructing the building. It is also asserted that both of them have contributed separately for construction of the building. The total plinth area of the building is 1125.69 sq. m as per the permit issued by the local authority. The western portion of the building having a plinth area of 600 sq. m. belongs to his wife and the remaining area of 525.65 sq. m. being the eastern portion belongs to the petitioner. By Ext.P1 notice, he was asked to appear on 14.8.2001 before the assessing authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in Ext.P2 which is an undated order, the first instalment is directed to be paid on 14.8.2001. Learned counsel therefore submits that the authority has not considered the matter on its merits. OP 15641/2002 -2- 2. Learned Govt. Pleader referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to argue that the petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of the case before the assessing authority. It is therefore submitted that the assessment as a single unit is perfectly in order. 3. If, as a matter of fact, the building is constructed separately and it is owned separately by the respective parties, it cannot be assessed as a single unit. The assessment order does not provide any reason in support of the assessment as a single unit. It is a non speaking order. Therefore, this is a matter which requires reconsideration at the hands of the assessing authority. In the appellate and revisional orders also the justification is not specifically dealt with. 4. For all these reasons, I quash the impugned orders. As a condition for remand, the petitioner is directed to remit a sum of Rs.5,000/- within three weeks from today. The assessing authority will consider the matter afresh after allowing the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the case. Final orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) OP 15641/2002 -3- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.15641 of 2002-K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 6th March, 2008.