Quashed

Abraham Isaac v. the District Collector

Kerala HC15 Jul 2024WP(C)/20428/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order and demand notice regarding building tax for three separate apartments. The court directed the District Collector to reconsider the revision petition based on reports indicating the apartments are distinct units with separate entries. While the judgment references the Kerala Building Tax Act, it does not cite specific sections.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P1 and Ext.P8 quashed; District Collector directed to reconsider the revision petition within two months.

Abraham Isaac Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 20428 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 ABRAHAM ISAAC

¶8

AGED 86 YEARS S/O.V.I.ISAAC, RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.70/2391/A, FRIENDS LANE 2, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682017 2 BETSY ABRAHAM AGED 54 YEARS D/O.ABRAHAM ISAAC, RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.70/2391/B, FRIENDS LANE 2, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682017 3 ANOOP ABRAHAM

¶9

AGED 34 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM ISAAC, RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.70/2391/C, FRIENDS LANE 2, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682017 BY ADVS. JOSE PALLATTUKARAN SMT.SANJANA RACHEL JOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶12

COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030

¶13

2 SUB COLLECTOR FORT KOCHI-682001

¶14

3 THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM - 682011

¶15

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM 682020

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 20428/2020

-2-

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 15^th day of July 2024)

¶21

The petitioner approached this Court for the following reliefs:

¶22

“i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 4 or anybody under them not to proceed against the petitioners on the basis of Ext. P1 impugned order Ext.P8 demand notice.

¶23

ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to set aside Ext. P1 order and Ext. P8 demand notice. iii) To issue an order or direction to consider the petitioners as separate assesses for the purpose of building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.”

¶24

2. According to the petitioners, they are in absolute

¶25

ownership in possession of the 1/3rd undivided share in the land measuring 7 cents in survey No.80/1 of Kaloor Desom, Elamkulam Village as per sale deed No.1913/1968, registered settlement

¶26

No.1418/2014 & 1419/2014 of sub-registry office, Ernakulam. They applied for permission to construct separate residential apartments in the said undivided share of land, and the permit was sanctioned by

¶27

the Cochin Municipal Corporation. Ext.P5 is the building permit.

¶28

After completion of the buildings, they were granted an occupancy

¶29

certificate by the Cochin Municipal Corporation with respect to the

¶30

WPC 20428/2020

¶31

-3-

¶32

1/3rd undivided share in the land, and the apartments are exclusively and separately owned and possessed by the petitioners.

¶33

Separate building tax was also remitted by the petitioners to the Cochin Municipal Corporation. The electricity connection, the water connection, and the cooking gas connection are different for each of the residential apartments.

¶34

It is the case of the petitioners that, without serving any

¶35

pre-assessment notice for assessment of the building tax in respect of the apartment owned by the petitioners, the assessment authority has issued the impugned demand notice in the name of the petitioners together based on illegal assessment for the three separate individual apartments belonging to the petitioners and clubbing them together

¶36

as a single unit. The 3^rd respondent has issued Ext.P8 notice demanding Rs.53,244/- from the petitioners. Impugning the said notice, an appeal was filed with statutory payments, and the appeal was dismissed on 14.11.2018, upholding the assessment of the 4^th respondent. A revision was filed against the appellate order before

¶37

WPC 20428/2020

¶38

-4-

¶39

the 1^st respondent. The revision was also dismissed by Ext.P1 order

¶40

dated 12.01.2020. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶41

A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that on the basis of the

¶42

report of respondents 2 and 3 and also on the basis of the physical verification, it was found that the three apartments are not connected to each other and are standing separately with separate entry and exit. It is taking into consideration the said report, the payment of luxury tax was omitted from payment. Strangely, however, it is said that buildings need not be treated separately for the purpose of assessing the building tax. When the Authorities themselves found that the buildings were separate and had separate entry and exit, and it was taken into consideration that the payment of luxury tax was omitted, the respondents could not sustain that the building had to be treated as one unit. Therefore, Ext.P1 is treated as illegal and improper.

¶43

In the result, Ext.P1 and Ext.P8 stand quashed. The 1^st

¶44

WPC 20428/2020

¶45

-5-

¶46

respondent is directed to reconsider the revision petition filed by the petitioners afresh on the available reports of respondents 2 and 3

¶47

and the physical verification. The petitioners are free to produce the documents in their possession to prove that the same cannot be treated as a single unit and that they are separately standing. The orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

WPC 20428/2020

-6-

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.DCEKM/14718/2018- B10 DATED 12/1/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1913/1968 DATED 9/9/1968 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1418/2014 DATED 24/3/2014 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1419/2014 DATED 24/3/2014 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 11/6/2014 SANCTIONED BY THE KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 7/9/2016 ISSUED BY THE KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 9/1/2018 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE COCHIN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P7(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 9/1/2018 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE COCHIN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P7(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 9/1/2018 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE COCHIN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28/11/2017 ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK TO THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G1039/18/KOS DATED 14/11/2018 IN APPEAL BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Abraham Isaac v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham Isaac 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

George P.T Vs State of Kerala

N.v.Kareem Vs the Divisional Railway Manager

Sindhu B. Vs the State of Kerala

Sheela. a Vs State of Kerala

Vibeesh Vs the Secretary

Subhash P, Vs Secretary