Allowed

Kurien Mathew v. the District Collector

Kerala HC10 Apr 2007OP/600/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge in a writ petition involving a builder opposed to having multiple residential apartments assessed as a single unit for building tax. The court quashed the subject assessment orders and demand notices, directing that they be reassessed in accordance with specific earlier judgments of this Court regarding time limits and final orders.

What did the court decide?

Extension P5(a) and P5(b) quashed. Assessment to be made by assessing authority following prior Court directions.

Kurien Mathew Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2007 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1929

¶5

OP.No. 600 of 2000(U)

¶6

-----------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

------------------

¶9

KURIEN MATHEW, S/O.A./C.MATHEW, APPACOTTU HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SMT.V.SETHUKUTTY AMMA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

----------------------

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

2. THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTTAMBALAM.

¶16

4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ (SR)

¶19

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER ON CMP. NO.934/2000 IN CMP. 5904/2000 IN OP. NO.600/2000

¶21

DISMISSED

¶22

10.04.2007 SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶25

EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND DT.9.11.94 EXECUTED BY ONE ABRAHAM PHILIP WITH THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE BUILDERS AGREEMENT DT.9.11.94 EXECUTED BY ONE SRI. ABRAHAM PHILIP WITH THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE FORM NO.V ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ONE ABRAHAM PHILIP.

¶28

EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE FORM NO.VI NOTICE OF DEMAND DT.25.5.98 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ONE ABRAHAM PHILIP.

¶29

EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT.14.12.99 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P5(a):- COPY OF THE FORM NO.V, ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶31

EXT.P5(b):- COPY OF THE FORM NO.VI NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶32

EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.28.11.96 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (H) DEPARTMET, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶33

EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 3.2.99 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶34

ANNEXURE 1:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.15.10.99 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAYAM.

¶35

ANNEXURE 2:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.3.11.99 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAYAM.

¶36

EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.22.11.99 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAYAM.

¶37

/TRUE COPY/

¶38

tss

¶39

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

¶40

O.P. NO. 600 OF 2000-U

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The petitioner is a builder, who constructed 16 residential apartments. Though he claimed assessment of building tax for each apartment separately, his contentions were overruled and the building was assessed to building tax, treating the same as a single unit. Ext.P5(a) is the assessment order issued in the prescribed format and Ext.P5(b) is the demand notice.

¶43

The point raised by the petitioner is covered by the judgments of this Court in two batch of writ petitions. This Court has issued certain directions in W.P.(C) No.4981/2007 and connected cases, as to how the assessment of residential apartments should be completed. Certain further directions were issued by this Court in the judgment in O.P.No.26467/2002 and connected cases. It is ordered that the directions in those judgments will govern this case also, including the time limit fixed for filing objections and for passing final orders. Accordingly, Exts.P5(a) and P5(b) are quashed. It is ordered that uninfluenced by Ext.P7 proceedings of the 5^th

¶44

Op 600/2000

¶45

¶46

respondent R.D.O., the assessment shall be made by the assessing authority. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

¶47

10^th April, 2007. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.

Nm/

Op 600/2000

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,J.

¶52

O.P. NO.600/2000 – U

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

10.4.2007

Kurien Mathew v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurien Mathew v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sakeer Vs Sri.C.M.Syed Mohammed

M/S. Neptune Readymix Concrete Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Intelligence Inspector

M/S.Sincere Distributors Vs State of Kerala

C.I. Itty Mathew Vs the Tahsildar,Tcr.

M/S.Bharath Hotel,D.H.Road,Ekm. Vs Kseb

M.Shashi Kumar Vs the Tahsildar