IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 34830 of 2001(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. BABURAJ, S/O. MADHAVAN, KOLLIKKARA HOUSE, PUDUKAD, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. BHASKARAN, NADAPARAMBIL, PUDUKAD, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN MR.K.JAGADEESH MR.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED RAFIQ FOR R1&2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.56930/2001 IN OP. NO.34830/2001 DISMISSED 16.02.2009 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 9.3.01. P2:- COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 3.4.01. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 27.8.01. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- O.P.NO.34830 OF 2001 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P3 and also for a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate order on Ext.P2 in accordance with law after inspecting the building and ascertaining the purpose for which it was used. According to the petitioners, the ground floor of the building was used for the purpose of their wholesale rice business and the first floor was used for the accommodation and residential facilities of the petitioners and their employees. The building was assessed to tax and the amount payable is assessed at Rs.23,400/-. The order was passed by categorising the building as “other building”. Ext.P1 is the copy of the order of assessment. Petitioners contended before the authorities that first floor of the building was used for the purpose of accommodation of the employees of the petitioners. So it cannot be treated as “other building”. The -2- O.P.No.34830/2001 contention was rejected by the assessing authority and the Appellate Authority. The first floor of the building is used for boarding purposes of the employees of the petitioners. At any rate, this will not come under the definition of residential building. Moreover, the petitioners have no case that in the draft plan and permit issued by the authority, the first floor is shown as residential portion. Therefore, the assessment of the building is legal and valid. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the authorities. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief claimed in this original petition. Original Petition is therefore dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv. -3- O.P.No.34830/2001 HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. -------------------------- O.P.NO.34830 OF 2001 -------------------------- JUDGMENT 16th February, 2009