BHALLATHIRIPAD Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 77. 5 cents of land in Sy. Nos. 688/1,2 of Elmkulam Village belonged to a joint family of the four petitioners and fifteen others, including some minors. The family got disrupted in status by virtue of the kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976 ). The parties orally partitioned the property thereafter by metes and bounds on 30-1-1983, which they recorded in a written instrument dated 24-12-1983, namely ext. P1. This document contains details of the specific portions of the property allotted to each of the nineteen members in the oral partition.

(2.) THE members of the family decided to put up a series of shop rooms in the property, for which they obtained a loan from the nedungadi Bank Ltd. , Ernakulam. Since there were minors among the parties, permission of the District Court, Ernakulam was sought for and obtained, for giving the property allotted to them as security to the Bank, as per petitions, guardian O. P. Nos. 133 to 136 of 1983. THE building was put up with the fund so obtained from the Bank, and as per sanction accorded by the Corporation of kochi. THE Corporation has registered the shop rooms standing on the properly of each of the owners separately, in the names of the respective owners, nineteen in number. Copies of the separate property tax assessment notices have been marked as Ext. P2 series. THE aggregate of the annual value of all the shop rooms fixed by the Corporation of Kochi is Rs. 4,14,800/ -.

(3.) BUT I am not resting my decision on this ground alone, as I am of the view that Ext. P7 and the orders confirmed thereby, namely Exts. P3 and P6, are invalid and unsustainable for other reasons as well. Firstly, the order of assessment Ext. P3 is vitiated for the reasons which I have set forth in my decision in Parur Tourist Home v. State of Kerala, 1993 (1) KLT 932. The capital value of the building, going by the annual value fixed by the corporation of Kochi, is Rs. 41,48,000/- in the aggregate. Even the capital value returned by the nineteen owners adds up only to Rs. 49,45,920/ -. Both these have been departed from, and the capital value fixed at Rs. V0,59,120/.-in the order of assessment Ext. P3. The appellate order Ext. P6 says that this was fixed on rental basis. BUT what exactly was the rental basis adopted is not disclosed in Ext. P6. Ext. P3 is totally silent about the basis of fixation of the capital value. I have discussed the matter in my decision in Parur Tourist home and held that when an assessment is completed under S. 6 (2), the assessee is entitled to be informed the basis on which the capital value is proposed to be fixed, and the materials on which the assessing authority formed its opinion that the annual value fixed by the local body was too low. S. 6 (2) itself obliges the issue of a notice before the assessing authority fixes the annual value differently from that fixed by the local body. There has been no such disclosure of materials, or of the basis of the assessment Ext. P3, to any of the assesses in this case. Ext. P3 is thus vitiated for the reasons stated in the decision in Parur Tourist Home. The consequence of nondisclosure of the materials or the basis of the assessment is violation of the principles of natural justice, and failure to afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to be heard, which renders the assessment null and void. Therefore the confirmation of Ext. P3 by Exts. P6 and PV is also null and void, though, even otherwise, they are vitiated for the reason that they do not also disclose the basis or materials of the assessment, apart from a bald assertion in Ext. P6 that it was made on rental basis. Exts. P3, P6 and PV are, for these reasons, unsustainable in law.