IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11049 of 2005(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. K.T.MOIDOOTTYMAN HAJI, S/O.MAMMOOTTY HAJI, KARATTUTHODY HOUSE, PATTIKKADU P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. K.T.MUHAMMED HARRIS, S/O.MOIDOOTTYMAN HAJI, KARATTUTHODY HOUSE, PATTIKKADU P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SAKIR HUSSAIN, S/O.MOIDOOTTYMAN HAJI, KARATTUTHODY HOUSE, PATTIKKADU P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA. 4. TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 25.2.2000 EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 25.2.2000 EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ;BUILDING PERMIT DATED 15.10.2001 EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.12.2003 EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 14.1.2004 EXT.P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.98.2004 EXT.P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.3.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO.11049 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader. The building constructed by the petitioners in two items of properties, one of which owned by petitioners 1 and 2, and the other owned by third petitioner, is a single commercial building. However, the case of the petitioners is that building is divided among owners and therefore tax liability also should be divided on proportionate basis. In fact, petitioners themselves can divide the tax liability in proportion to the extent of plinth area of the building held by each of them and offer payment to the Tahsildar. If the petitioners agree on the proportion in payment, then there will be direction to the Tahsildar to receive payment in terms of their offer in respect of separate portion held by them and issue receipt separately, provided all of them remit full tax assessed. If they are not able to settle the liability as above, then there will be direction to the Tahsildar to apportion the liability among petitioners in proportion to the extent held by them based on documents to be produced by the petitioners. W.P. is disposed of with the above directions. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 2