Petitioner challenged assessment orders treating an eleven-apartment building as a single unit despite evidence of separate ownership and shared costs. The court set aside the orders and directed fresh consideration.
Exts.P6(a) and (b) orders set aside, Third Respondent directed to pass fresh orders considering individual owners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/18TH CHAITHRA 1935
WP(C).No. 32323 of 2007 (W)
PETITIONER:
M.D.JAYANTHAN NAMBOODIRIPAD, D1-SREE HARI APARTMENTS, TRIPUNITHURA.
BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR.
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECETARY TO MINISTRY OF REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM.
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
3. TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.
4. VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAMA VILLAGE, TRIPUNITHURA.
5. POONTHANAM APARTMENTS FLAT OWNERS-
R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE, R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.KURIAN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
W.P.(C). NO.32323/2007-W:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Prv.
ANTONY DOMINIC,J
W.P.(C) No.32323 of 2007
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2013
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Exts.P6(a) and P6(b) orders, assessing a building constructed by the petitioner with eleven apartments as a single unit. The petitioner was issued a preassessment notice, to which, he filed Ext.P5 objection. According to the petitioner, along with the objection, he produced Exts.P1 and P2 agreements and other documents evidencing that the building was owned by different persons and that its cost of construction was also shared by all those persons. On that basis, the petitioner contends that each of the apartments should be assessed as a separate unit. Despite the above, by Exts.P6(a) and (b) orders, the whole building was assessed as one unit treating the petitioner as its owner. It is challenging these assessment orders, the writ petition has been filed.
W.P.(c) No.32323 of 2007 : 2 :
documents evidencing ownership of different persons were produced by the petitioner. It is also his case that he had produced sufficient evidence to conclude that the building was constructed with cost contributed by each one of the owners.
However, a reading of Exts.P6(a), the proceedings of the Tahsildar show that it was without taking note of the aforesaid contention or referring to the documents allegedly produced by the petitioner that the assessment was completed. Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for reconsideration of the matter. Accordingly, I set aside Exts.P6 (a) and (b) and direct the third respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter, with notice to the petitioner and the fifth respondent and if necessary to the individual owners themselves. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
ln
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the assessing authority considered relevant documents regarding separate ownership and shared construction costs before treating the multi-unit building as a single unit.
Whether the assessment orders passed without noticing the petitioner's objections and evidence warrant reconsideration.
M.D.JAYANTHAN NAMBOODIRIPAD
STATE OF KERALA
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM
VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAMA VILLAGE, TRIPUNITHURA
POONTHANAM APARTMENTS FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
