IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 37343 of 2001(U) --------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. RENUKA VISHWANATHNAN, W/O. D.R A.N. VISHWANATHNAN, CHAITHANYA HOUSE, AZAD LANE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM. 2. D.R. A.N. VISHWANATHNAN CHAITHANYA HOUSE, AZAD LANE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P.PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 61143/2001 IN OP NO. 37343/2001 U. DISMISSED 08/01/2008. SD/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. 6852/89 DT. 16/2/90 ISSUED BY THE R1. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R1 DT. 17/12/90. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT. 22/2/91 ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE P1. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. B8/6627/90 DT. 22/2/1991 ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE P2. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K.DIS B. 2665/91 DT. 26/2/92 ISSUED BY THE R2. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K.DIS 26525/92 B3 DT 19/2/93 ISSUED BY THE R3. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. B8 6627/90 DT. 6/6/94 BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN OP NO. 10739/94 DTD. 6/6/2001. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1589/2001/D.K DIS DT. 24/11/2001 ISSUED BY THE R2. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL PETITION FILED AS OP NO. 10739/94 DT. 1/08/94. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE R3 DT. 15/4/92. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= O.P.NO.37343 OF 2001 ========================= Dated this the 8th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners challenge Ext.P9 order which is an order in appeal issued by the Assistant Collector under the Building Tax Act. It is seen that the appeal was disposed of earlier without hearing the petitioners. Petitioners challenged the earlier order passed and this Court vide Ext.P8 judgment set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter for re-hearing. Ext.P9 order is issued pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P8 judgment. The assessment order against which appeal is filed is not produced in this Original Petition. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not received any assessment order. I am unable to believe this fact because the appeal is maintainable only when it is accompanied by the assessment order. Moreover, even though the petitioner approached this Court earlier and obtained Ext.P8 judgment, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had this grievance and if such a contention was raised, I have no doubt that this Court would have ordered to issue a copy of the assessment order. On going through Ext.P7 which is a demand notice, I find that the building tax assessment is completed based on the capital value. This is seen made based on the rent received by O.P.37343/2001 2 the petitioners from the Bharat Charitable hospital Society. The construction of the building was completed before 1992 and the plinth area method of the assessment was introduced in its statute only later. Even though assessment made together for two buildings, mistake was later rectified because two buildings were owned by each of the two petitioners and were constructed at different times. I do not find anything wrong in the rectification carried out by the assessing authority. The Original petition is therefore devoid of any merit and is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE css/ O.P.37343/2001 3