Allowed

A.a.Yousuf and Others v. the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk & Ars.

Kerala HC20 Jan 2012WP(C)/40252/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an ex-parte assessment order under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The court held that the order was passed without affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order was set aside and the matter remanded for re-adjudication after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P16 order quashed and matter remanded to the first respondent for re-adjudication after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

A.a.Yousuf and Others Vs the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/30TH POUSHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 40252 of 2003 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. A.A. YOUSUF, EMGEE SQUARE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.44/2831-C, LINK GARDENS, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶8

2. M.A.MOHAMMED BABU MOOPAN, EMGEE SQUARE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING ATC.C.36/1895,(FORMERLY DOOR NO.36/1507-A), SEBASTIAN ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.

¶9

3. A.J.FRANCIS, ALAPATT HOUSE, ST.BENEDICT 1ST CROSS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 018.

¶10

4. P.R.DAVIS, PULIKOTTIL HOUSE, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 018.

¶11

5. M/S.JOS SANITARY EQUIPMENTS, EMGEE SQUARE,M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SMT.KOCHUTHRESSIA JOSEPH, W/O.LATE K.V.JOSEPH, KUREEKAL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI - 682 024.

¶12

6. PRINCESON JOSE, RESIDING AT NO.94 (FORMERLY NO.86/1) G.N.CHETTY ROAD, JEEVA PARK CIRCLE, T,NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017.

¶13

7. E.I.SEBA, DOOR NO.CC. 36/1985(FORMERLY CC.36/1507 A) SEBASTIAN ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.POULOSE

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

1. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK.

¶17

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

svs

¶21

W.P.(C). NO. 40252/2003

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

P1: COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 07/10/96 ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 WITH THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶25

P2: COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 07/10/96 BETWEEN PETITIONERS 1, 2 AND 4.

¶26

P3: COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 07/10/96 BETWEEN PETITIONERS 1, 2 AND 5.

¶27

P4: COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 25/04/98 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONERS 2 & 6.

¶28

P5: COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 10/04/98 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONERS 2 & 6.

¶29

P6: COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 25/03/98 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONERS 2 & 6.

¶30

P7: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 05/03/99 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONERS 2 & 7.

¶31

P8: COPY OF REGTISTERED SALE DEED DATGED 12/05/2000 NO.2072/1/2000 EXECUTED BY 2ND PETITIONER INFAVOUR OF 3TD PETITIONER.

¶32

P9: COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.1574/2000 DATED 10/04/2000 ECEVUTED BY 2ND PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF 4TH PETITIONER.

¶33

P10: COPY OF REGD.SALE DEED NO.3520/1/00 DATED 13/02/2003 EXECUTED BY 2ND PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF 5TH PETITIONER.

¶34

P11: COPY OF REGD.SALE DEED NO.3520/1/00 DATED 04/08/2000 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 6TH PETITIONER.

¶35

P12: COPY OF REGD.SALE DEED NO.3120/1/00 DATED 07/07/2000 EXECUTED BY 2ND PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 6TH PETITIONER.

¶36

P13: COPY OF REGD. SALE DEED NO.3402/1/00 DATED 28/07/2000 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 6TH PETITIONER.

¶37

svs

¶38

.....................2/-......

¶39

...2...

¶40

WPC. NO.40252/2003

¶41

P14: COPY OF THE REGD. SALE DEED NO.1654/1/01 DATED 07/04/2001 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER INFAVOUR OF THE 7TH PETITIONER.

¶42

P15: COPY OF THEJUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.31805/2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶43

P16: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15/09/2003.

¶44

P17: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM V, DATED 15/07/2003.

¶45

P18: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.VI.DATED 15/09/2003.

¶46

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

svs

B.P. Ray, J.

====================================

¶52

W.P.(C)No.40252/2003

¶53

====================================

¶54

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2012.

¶55

JUDGMENT

¶56

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶57

Government Pleader.

¶58

Petitioners have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:

¶59

“i) call for the records leading to Ext.P16 and to issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction quashing the same;

¶60

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to pass fresh assessment order taking into consideration Exts.P1 to P14 documents and sale deed Nos.3524/02, 3525/01, 3523/01. 3526/01 and 3527/01l;

¶61

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the respondents are not entitled to realise any amount as per Exts.P16 to P18;

¶62

iv) issue any other writ, order or direction this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case; and

¶63

v) award costs of this W.P.C. to the petitioners.”

¶64

Petitioners' case is that the rooms/apartments covered by Exts.P8 to

¶65

P14 sale deeds in the multi-storied building were constructed for

¶66

W.P.(C)No.40252/2003 -:2:-

¶67

petitioners 3 to 7 at their own expense. They spent the money for the construction in pursuance to Exts.P1 to P7 agreements. Accordingly, those rooms/apartments are liable to be assessed under Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Petitioners' contention is that they have to be separately assessed and since no documentary evidence was produced to show that the petitioners spent separately, the apartments were taxed as a one unit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not given an opportunity before Ext.P16 order was passed. Taking into consideration of the fact that Ext.P16 order was passed without hearing the petitioners, I have no hesitation to set aside Ext.P16 and remit the matter to the first respondent for re-adjudication in accordance with law. In order to avoid delay, if the petitioners appear before the Tahsildar on 6.2.2012 along with a copy of this judgment, the Tahsildar shall conclude the proceedings within three months from the date of their appearance after affording the

¶68

W.P.(C)No.40252/2003 -:3:-

¶69

petitioners an opportunity of being heard.

¶70

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶71

B.P. Ray, Judge.

¶72

sl.

A.a.Yousuf and Others v. the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk & Ars.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.a.Yousuf and Others v. the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk & Ars.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anna Kochouseph Vs S. Roopakala Jagath

Thomas Lukose Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Anna Kochouseph Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

M/S.D.P.Foam,. Pvt. Limited Vs the Tahsildar,Kanayannur Taluk

M/S.Season Rubbers Vs Director of Industries & Commerce

G.Madanan Vs K.S.E.B. and Others