IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36304 of 2009(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. DR.GEOGI K.NINAN, KOLLEMPARAMABIL, PERINGOLE, KOLLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. JESSY N.ABRAHAM, KOLLEMPARAMBIL, PERINGOLE, KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. FIBI NINAN, KOLLEMPARAMBIL, PERINGOLE, KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.36304 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge is against Ext.P13 order of assessment and P14 consequential demand issued under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The assessment made on an earlier occasion was subject matter of challenge before this court. In Ext.P10 judgment this court set aside the assessment and remitted the matter back to the assessing authority for considering the question as to whether the petitioners are eligible for separate assessments with respect to the portion of building claimed to have been owned by each of them, or in other words the question directed to be decided is as to whether the building will fall within the category enumerated under explanation (2) to Section 2(e) of the Act. 2. In the impugned order of assessment the 1st respondent found that the building in question is a single unit, which is a three-storied residential house and not separate apartments. The above finding is arrived mainly on the basis of physical verification conducted at the time of inspection. Eventhough the petitioners contended that there is no proper W.P.(C).36304/09-G 2 appreciation of the matter and advertence to the documents produced in evidence in proper compliance of the directions contained in Ext.P10 judgment, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can resort to remedy of appeal as provided under the statute, especially because the findings in the impugned assessment is based on factual aspects which is in dispute. 3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to right of the petitioners to file appeal against Ext.P13 and P14. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that certain amount has already been paid pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment. Needless to say that payment if any made shall be reckoned and adjusted against the pre-requisite condition for entertaining the appeal. 4. It is further made clear that if the petitioners file appeal against the assessment within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, then the competent authority shall consider and dispose of such appeal on merits as if it is an appeal filed within the time stipulated under the statute. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb