IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7877 of 2008(K) PETITIONER: 1. DR.A.R.JAYACHANDRAN, FLAT NO.A, SRILAKSHMI APARTMENTS VYTTILA. 2. N.S.RAJAGOPAL, FLAT NO.B., SRILAKSHMI APARTMENTS VYTTILA. 3. LAKSHMI RAJAGOPAL, FLAT NO.B., SRILAKSHMI APARTMENTS VYTTILA. 4. P.RAMACHANDRAN, FLAT NO.H, SRILAKSHMI APARTMENTS VYTTILA. 5. GEETHA RAMACHANDRAN, FLAT NO.H, SRILAKSHMI APARTMENTS VYTTILA. 6. N.GOKULDAS, FLAT NO.C, SRILAKSHMI APARTMENTS VYTTILA. 7. BAIJU THOMAS, FLAT NO.F., SRILAKSHMI APARTMENTS VYTTILA. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.SUNIL SHANKER RESPONDENTS: 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, POONITHURA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 4. SRILAKSHMI BUILDERS, LAKSHMI DIARY, VYTTILA. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 7877 OF 2008 K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P4, P5 and P6. These are proceedings of the 1st respondent, order of assessment and notice of demand issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act. 2. Petitioners are the flat owners of an apartment complex by name Srilakshmi Apartments. Ext. P1 is a list of owners of the apartments. Ext. P2 is a specimen copy of the agreement for construction that they had entered into with the builders of the apartment. Ext. P3 is a speciman sale deed of undivided interest in the land where the flat was constructed and it is on the strength of Ext. P2 that the flat was constructed. They would submit that it was using their individual contribution that the expenditure for the construction was met by the builders. It is submitted that they did W.P.(C) No. 7877 OF 2008 - 2 - not have any notice of assessment, but that the liability will be enforced against the flats in question. It is contended that without notice to them and with notice only to the builders, assessment has been completed and that the whole apartments has been assessed as a single unit. 2. In my view, the position now canvassed by the petitioner is concluded by this Court in the judgment in the case of Bava Sons v. State of Kerala {2007 (3) KLT 101}. In that case identical contentions raised were considered by this Court and this Court set aside the assessment order and directed the Tahsildar to re- consider the assessment with notice to the affected parties. 3. In this case admittedly notice has not been issued to the petitioners who are none other than the flat owners. Therefore, this also is a case where the process of assessment will have to be redone with notice to the petitioners. In order to enable the 1st respondent to undertake the exercise of a fresh assessment I quash Exts. P4, P5 and P6. The 1st respondent shall issue notice to the petitioners, conduct an enquiry with opportunity to the petitioners to produce whatever evidence they want and then pass fresh orders W.P.(C) No. 7877 OF 2008 - 3 - of assessment. The 1st respondent shall do this, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 3. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-