LEELA JOSE Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The owner of a property has been proceeded against for building tax, which was impugned in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy being available which is an efficacious remedy. The appeal is by the person on whom the tax has been assessed.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Sri.Santhosh Abraham would submit that facts arising in the case is not as simple as a regular assessment made. The appellant was the owner of the subject property. She had some debts upon which she entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent for sale of the property to him or his assignees. Simultaneously there was an agreement executed with the 2nd respondent giving him the right to construct an apartment complex therein and sell the individual apartments to various purchasers. The agreement for construction specifically gave the 2nd respondent the right to construct the apartment complex with his money or the money received from the prospective purchasers. The 2nd respondent proceeded with the agreement and constructed the apartment complex and sold certain apartments before the construction was completed and eventually it stood completed in the year 2016. All the apartments in the complex stood sold and conveyed to the purchasers, who had individually paid for the construction.

(3.) A notice was issued under the Building Tax Act to the appellant since the local authority had issued the permit for construction in the name of the appellant who was the land owner. After the construction, individual deeds were executed by the appellant herself in the name of the apartment owners and also conveyed the undivided interest in the landed property. Construction according to the appellant was made by using the amounts received from the individual purchasers by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent who appears through Counsel admits that he had made the construction on the basis of the amounts received from the individual purchasers and that the individual purchasers had filed returns before the authority.