Buildings constructed under separate permits must be assessed individually despite temporary connections, in line with the principles outlined in the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.

JUDGMENT

1. The 2^nd petitioner, prior to 2005, purchased 26.585 cents of land as per the following six title deeds:

i. 1.90 Ares (4.695 cents) in Re-Sy. No.105/35 of Kalpetta Village by virtue of Sale Deed No.1131/2000 dated 30.03.2000 of the Sub Registry Office, Kalpetta.

ii. 1.91 Ares (4.70 cents) of land in Re-Sy. No.105/16, 105/34 of Kalpetta Village by virtue of Sale Deed No.2839/2000 dated 31.07.2000 of the Sub Registry Office, Kalpetta.

iii. 1.01Ares (2.50 cents) of land in Re-Sy. No. 105/44 of Kalpetta Village by virtue of Sale Deed No. 1356/2001 dated 15.05.2001 of the Sub Registry Office, Kalpetta.

iv. 1.09 Ares (2.69 cents) of land in Re-Sy. No. 105/44 of Kalpetta Village by virtue of Sale Deed No.1858/2001 dated 18.07.2001 of the Sub Registry Office, Kalpetta. V. 2.45 Ares (6 cents) of land in Re-Sy. No. 105/43 of Kalpetta Village by virtue of Sale Deed No.1281/2002 dated 25.06.2002 of the Sub Registry Office, Kalpetta.

vi. (2.45 Ares) 6 cents of land in Re-Sy. No.105/12 of Kalpetta Village by virtue of Sale Deed No.2952/2005 dated 22.09.2005 of the Sub Registry Office, Kalpetta.

Thereafter, the petitioners together purchased 12.20 cents of land comprised in Re. Sy. No. 105/17, 105/20, and 106/12 of Kalpetta Village by virtue of Sale Deed No. 1637/2010 dated 08.03.2010 and Settlement Deed No. 5054/2010 dated 10.08.2010 of the Sub Registry Office, Kalpetta. Initially, the 1st petitioner constructed a building prior to 2010 in the 26.585 cents, which was assessed, and for which they paid the tax.

2. The petitioners together constructed a new building having an extent of 1484.13 square meters on the property purchased in the year 2010. The building was constructed in the year 2013 on the basis of Building Permit No. 342/10-11 issued by the Kalpetta Municipality. It is stated that the cost of construction was borne by both petitioners. The construction of the said building was completed in the year 2013, and the petitioners submitted all the requisite documents for assessment before the authorities, including the permit, plan, etc., for assessment at the prevailing rate.

3. It is further stated that the petitioners had constructed a temporary access between the two buildings on the third floor. It is contended that the 4th respondent, instead of assessing the new building admeasuring 1484.13 square meters in the joint name of the petitioners, taken the measurement together with the old building and issued Ext. P1 with a revised rate applicable from 01.04.2014. As per Ext. P2 — Form 1 and the building tax proforma issued by the Village Officer — it is shown that the construction of the building was completed and occupied as of 01.04.2014.

4. Being aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P1, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) as per Ext.P4. However, by order dated 06.10.2017, marked as Ext.P6, the appeal was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision petition was preferred before the District Collector as per Ext.P7. By Ext.P9 order dated 31.10.2018, the District Collector rejected the revision petition, upholding the findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. In response to the contentions, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent, wherein paragraph 3 reads as follows:

It is submitted that earlier a report was submitted by the Village Officer Kalpetta vide CR.No. 162/14 dated 02.04.2014 to the Tahisldar, Vythiri regarding the assessment of building tax related to the building owned by the petitioner. A notice for personal hearing was sent to the petitioner and he was heard on 21.05.2014. Later a charge officer was authoriz