The obligation of the assessing authority to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing an order, as personal hearing is a mandatory requirement on grounds of public policy and fair play.

Heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. The petitioner along with two others had purchased a plot of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 253/1,513/1 and 513/3 of Ernakulam Village. As per registered partition deed, being document No. 2242/85 of Ernakulam Sub Registry, the said land was partitioned by the petitioner and the other two parties. As per Ext. P1 partition deed the land was divided into six plots and three of the plots marked in the plan attached to Ext. P1 as A, Al and A2 were allotted to the petitioner. A further partition of the land allotted to the petitioner and the buildings under construction on the said 1 ands was made between the petitioner, his son and daughter by Ext. P2 partition deed dated 7-10-1985. Construction of building was commenced on the said plot by the petitioner, his son Mohan Markose and daughter Maya Markose and by allotting specific extent and portions of lands demarcating the share of each parties, the petitioner, his son and daughter had become absolute and separate owners of the land and buildings therein. After the completion of the construction of building, the Cochin Corporation assessed the building to property tax separately. Ext. P3 is the order of assessment passed by the Cochin Corporation fixing the half yearly property tax at Rs. 1,680/-. Thereafter, t lie petitioner filed building tax returns before the respondent herein who is the assessing authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The respondent assessed the building separately and the petitioner paid building tax based on separate assessment on 14-8-1987. Some time thereafter, notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner and four others stating that the assessment already made on them treating the building as separate units is erroneous and therefore invoking the provisions under S.15 of the Kerala Building Tax Act the respondent proposed to revise the assessment. Ext. P8 is the objection filed by the petitioner, his son and daughter before the respondent on 31-5-1989 stating that they have exclusive title and possession over the property consisting 9.021 cents of land and improvements comprised in Sy. Nos. 513/1,2530/1 and 513/3 shown as plots A, Al and A2 in partition deed No. 2242/85 of S.R.O., Ernakulam. It was specifically brought to the notice of the respondent the recital in the partition deed that the property is partitioned for the purpose of constructing separate buildings of the respective parties. Ext. P8 contains a specific statement to the effect mat consequent to the partition deed the parties have executed written agreement (Reg.No. 3398/85) on 7-10-85 of S.R.O., Ernakulam to the effect that, the property A is in possession of Or. N.V. Markose, Al is in possession of Maya Markose and A2 is in possession of Mohan Markose and hence it is clear that the properties including the building is in separate possession and ownership. The petitioner therefore claims that he is eligible to get the benefits provided in the Kerala Building Tax Act. Pursuant to Ext. P8, the petitioner's representative appeared before the then Tahsildar on 31-5-1989 and he was also heard.

3. The complaint of the petitioner as highlighted before me in this original petition is that nothing was heard from the respondent since 31-5-1989 till 4-8-1994, the date of Ext. P9 order wherein it is stated that it is proposed to revise the earlier assessment as according to the respondent the earlier assessment is passed on a mistake of fact. The case of the respondent is that the building is liable to be assessed as a composite unit and not as separate units as claimed by the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner produced all relevant documents before the then Tahsildar in 1989 itself in support of his claim for being treated as separate entities for the purpose of taxation under the Kerala Building Tax Act and thereafter nothing was heard from the then Tahsildar. That being so, the present Tahsildar