IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16841 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- EBIN B.O.OOMMEN (MINOR) REP. BY FATHER AND GUARDIAN BABU OOMMEN ALES RESIDENCY, NEAR PADMA JUNCTION, 40/6779,6780& 6781 ERNAKULAM KOCHI -35. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR SMT.LALIZA.T.Y. RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KANAYANNOOR TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI-11. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. VINOD CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 16841of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P14 and seeks a direction to the respondents not to make any assessment under the Building Tax Act on the building bearing No.40/6779, 6780 and 6781 purchased by the petitioner as per Ext.P1. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner has purchased 33.02 cents of land along with building from Sri. A.N. Viswanatha Kammath and thirteen others in the year 2007. The building was constructed by the previous owner in the year 1963 and they were conducting it as a lodging house under the name and style “Keerthi Mahal” near Padma Junction. The Building Tax Act, 1975 came into force with effect from 1.4.1973. It is the specific case of the petitioner that since the building was constructed before 1973, no assessment was made on the building, and the petitioner became the owner of the building only on 22.8.2007. It is the further case of the petitioner that after purchasing the property petitioner effected minor repairs and after repainting the building started business of conducting a lodging house by changing the name as Ale's Residency. According to the petitioner the WPC.16841/2008. 2 Village Officer submitted a false report to the respondent stating that the petitioner constructed a new building and started business. Petitioner produced Exts.P1, P2, P5 and P12 documents. He also produced Exts.P9 and P16 explanations. But, according to the petitioner, the respondent is bent upon passing an assessment with premeditation. 2. I heard learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes Sri.Vinod Chandran. He would submit on instructions that in Ext.P1 sale deed the plinth area of the building is shown as nearly 1900 square meters. It is the further submission on instructions that the building as it now stands has an extent of more than 3000 square meters. 3. I would think that Ext.P14 is essentially in the form of a notice and it is for the petitioner to place all his objections before the authority. Sri. Vinod Chandran submits that the Deputy Tahsildar shall conduct an inspection in the presence of the petitioner. I am sure that the statutory authority will not give rise to any room for any complaint of any illegal action. The Deputy Tahsildar will consider the objections of the petitioner, which he may raise before him. Subject to this, the writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb WPC.16841/2008. 3