IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34675 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SAJI THOMAS, NJARAVELIL HOUSE, VADAYAR VILLAGE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JIMMY THOMAS. 2. JIMMY THOMAS, NJARAVELIL HOUSE, VADAYAR VILLAGE, THALAYOLAPARABU. BY ADVS. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM, SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR-VAIKOM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM - 686 141. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE R.D.O. PALA - 686 575. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR - KOTTAYAM COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRTARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34675 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner is challenging assessment of Building Tax completed under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, which stands confirmed through Ext.P7 and P8 orders of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. 2. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner had permitted the second petitioner to construct the second floor of the building and the second petitioner is the owner in occupation of that portion. Hence the petitioners are seeking separate assessments with respect to different floors owned by each of them. The assessing authority as well as the appellate and revisional authorities have categorically found that the building is lying as a single unit and it could not be used as a separate house as contended by the petitioners. On factual aspects it is held by all the authorities that the building is not having separate entrance and there are no separate kitchens provided in both the floors. 3. From the factual aspects concluded by the different authorities it is evident that the building is situated as a single unit. Therefore the claim for separate assessment is not sustainable. The legal position in this regard stands covered as W.P.(C).34675/10-H -2- per decision of this court in Abdul Shukkoor Vs. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others (2009 (3) KHC 308). Therefore I find no merit in the contentions raised. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioners made an appeal to this court to permit payment of the balance amount outstanding, in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. It is submitted that 50% of the tax assessed had already been paid. In view of the above circumstances I am inclined to permit the petitioners to make payment of the balance amount within a reasonable time in instalments. 5. Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition, the 1st respondent is directed to keep in abeyance all further steps of recovery of the balance tax amount covered under Ext.P5 and P6, provided the petitioners remit the amount due in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.12.2010 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb