JESTY DOMINIC Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the owner of 12.530 ares of property comprised in Re.Sy Nos.44/5, 44/4 and 43/2 in Block No.85 of Aluva West Village. He obtained a building permit and constructed a building with 24 apartments. By Ext.P3, building tax was assessed treating the entire building as one unit. That order was challenged before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The appeal was rejected by Ext.P7 order. Revision filed before the District Collector was also rejected by Ext.P9. It is challenging these proceedings, the writ petition is filed.

(2.) THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had sold undivided interest in the land to 24 persons, whose names and addresses are given in para 4 of the writ petition. It is stated that thereafter he entered into agreements authorising him to construct the apartments on behalf of the purchasers of the property. Accordingly, utilising the individual contribution made by the respective owners, the building was constructed. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, each apartment should be treated as a separate unit and should have been assessed on that basis.

(3.) A reading of the provision shows that where a building consists of different apartments or flats owned by different persons and the cost of construction of the building was met by all such persons jointly, each such apartment or flat shall be deemed to be a separate building. Therefore, not only that the apartments should be owned by different persons, there must also be proof that the cost of construction was met by all such persons jointly to make each apartment a separate building. In this case, although petitioner contends that the property in question is owned by different persons, there was no proof whatsoever either before the original authority, the appellate authority or the revisional authority that the cost of construction of the building was met by the owners jointly. Therefore, one of the essential ingredients specified in the second explanation necessary to be proved for treating each apartment as a single building was absent in this case. In such a case, the assessment of the building as one unit cannot be said to be illegal justifying interfere in a writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed.