IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 4549 of 2005(N) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. CLARAMMA JOHN, W/O. JOHN AKKARA, 31/992 B, PANORAMA ENCLAVE, KOCHI-682 019. 2. JOHN AKKARA, 31/992 B, PANORAMA ENCLAVE, KOCHI-682 019. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 4549/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING FROM THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 20.8.1992. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 07.9.93. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI TO THE 1ST PETITIONERDATED 16.08.99. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF OTHE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 18.01.2000. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.B4 4297/2001/85 DATED 01.10.02 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.K.DIS. 4558/01-G DATED 07.12.01 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.08.03 IN WPC : 26960/03 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEDDINGS NO.K.DS.4598/03-G DATED 09.1.04 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.B.10/17871/04.K.DIS DATED 28.12.04 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.B4 4297/01 DATED 13.12.05 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 4549 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Question raised is whether the building assessed comprises of two residential units as claimed by the petitioners or is one single building though occupied by two families. Petitioners are husband and wife and ownership of land is with the lady. According to the petitioners, ground floor was constructed as residential unit in 1993 by the husband and later first floor which is also independent residential building was constructed by the wife. After completion of the first floor Tahsildar assessed the building as a single building on the ground that entire building is owned by the first petitioner. Government Pleader submitted that explanation II to Section 2(e) is snot applicable because there is proof of sharing the cost of construction between the two petitioners. Even if there is no proof of sharing of cost of construction by the petitioners, buildings have to be assessed separately if they are distinct and separate residential units as claimed by the petitioners. However, if building is internally connected through stair- 2 case then it has to be assessed as a single building, no matter it is owned by the petitioners together or each portion by each of them separately. In other words, what is to be considered is not whether two families are residing or not, but whether the building is designed in such a way as to constitute one unit. Therefore Tahsildar is directed to inspect the building and if he finds that the buildings are distinct and separate and without any inter-connection as stated above, he will assess the buildings separately. On the other hand, if he finds that buildings are connected internally then he will make single assessment no matter for the time being one portion is let out or not. W.P.C. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3