IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 868 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23743/2006 Dated 05/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY MR.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN THE WPC ------------------------------------- 1. M.C.ROY, S/O.CHINNAN, MECHERIL HOUSE, CHINNANSONS JEWELLERS, PERINTHALMANNA. 2. M.C.MARTIN, S/O.CHINNAN, MECHERIL HOUSE, CHINNANSONS JEWELLERS, PERINTHALMANNA. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A.No. 868 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the Writ Appeal is whether covered portion of terrace of a building is assessable for building tax. 2. The question raised stands covered by the Single Bench judgment of this Court in Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala, reported in 2009(1) KLT 295. However, contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the judgment above referred pertains to residential building, and building in this case is a commercial building. We do not find any difference between commercial and residential buildings, so far as the definition of plinth area is concerned. The decision rendered by this Court is to the effect that roofing is given to a building mainly to protect it from rain and sun and such roofing will not make terrace a constructed portion of building. However, it was specifically held that if terrace is enclosed with metal, brick or any other material, then the terrace so enclosed W.A.No.868/2010 -2- and roofed can also be treated as a building for the purpose of assessment. Since the appellants have no case that the terrace in this case is enclosed and used as a building, the above judgment clearly applies. We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Appeal following the judgment referred to above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) jg