RAJESH PRABHU Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P1 assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent by way of Ext. P12 order passed in appeal, forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The father of the petitioner was the owner of the property having an extent of 56.330 cents of land in Sy. No. 659/6, 7, 11 and 1185/2 of Ernakulam Village. During his life time, he entered in to an agreement with M/s. Yasoram Construction Company for construction of a multistoried building therein, agreeing to have apportionment of the building to an extent of 37% to be allotted to the land owner and balance 63% to the builder. It is stated that the original owner of the property is no more, who had executed a 'Will' so as to obtain returns from the builder in the proportion already set forth as desired by him. The construction is stated as completed by the builder and by virtue of the terms of the Will, the petitioner is entitled to have 11 Flats (residential occupancy) and a further space of nearly 310.20 Sq. mtr. of non residential space. Two other Flats have been allotted, one in the name of the mother of the petitioner and the other in the name of his sister. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly with regard to the clubbing of different apartments allotted to him and fixing the tax liability treating it as a single building, denying the benefit of explanation (II) to Section 2(e) of Kerala Building Tax Act. It is stated that the building allotted to the mother of the petitioner has been assessed separately and that the different Flats constructed by the builder and sold to the prospective customers have also been assessed separately, whereas an arbitrary and discriminatory stand has been taken in the case of the petitioner and hence the challenge.

(3.) The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit seeking to sustain the course and events, also producing some documents such as the Building Permit, Occupancy Certificate and such other documents on different dates as Exts. R1(a) to R1(d). It is seen from the pleadings and proceedings that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier, challenging Ext. P1 assessment order and Exts. P2 to P7 demand notices by filing W.P. (C). No. 8687 of 2008, which was disposed of as per Ext. P9 judgment dated 28.3.2008, relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy before the second respondent, after satisfying 50% of the total demand. The petitioner satisfied the said requirement and filed Ext. P10 and similar appeals. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner submitted Ext. P11 notes of argument as well. Nothing was heard for quite long time and after four years, Ext. P12 order was passed by the 2nd respondent on 21.07.2012, holding that the petitioner had not turned up for hearing on 18.7.2008, 29.08.2008 and on 24.10.2008, thus rejecting the appeals without entering into the merits of the case. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.