The Court held that a reassessment of property tax must consider ownership shares post-partition, ensuring accurate representation of legal rights.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P18 revisional order passed by the 2^nd respondent.

2. It is averred that the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of deceased Simon along with Sri. Mathew. The petitioner's father was the owner of a two storied building bearing No.39/2723 and 39/2724 of Cochin Corporation having 65.91m² each in Survey No.851/7 measuring 6.17 ares of land, which was obtained by the petitioner's father as per Ext.P1 Sale Deed. In the sale deed, existence of a two storied building bearing building No.35/526 is specifically mentioned. Consequent to the death of the petitioner's father, the property was partitioned by the petitioner and his brother as per Ext.P2 partition deed. It is averred that a portion of the said building was allotted to the petitioner as per the partition deed. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a plan for constructing a new house in front of the existing building, which was approved and the construction of the new building was completed and the building was numbered by the Corporation of Kochi. To substantiate the same the petitioner has produced Ext.P3, copy of the approved building plan. To the surprise of the petitioner, he has been served with a proceedings assessing the area of the building as 287.14 sq.m and the tax is fixed at Rs.12,600/- along with luxury tax as per Ext.P4 proceedings. As per the averment in the writ petition, pursuant to the partition, the building is cut in the middle and the petitioner has only one half share in the building, but the respondent has clubbed both the building together and taken the total area as 287.14 sq.m., which is arbitrary and illegal. The specific case of the petitioner is that the portion of the building allotted to his brother as per the partition deed shall not be included for assessing the building tax and for demanding luxury tax. An appeal was preferred, which was rejected as per Ext.P6, against which a revision petition was filed, which ended up in Ext.P18 order.

3. A perusal of Ext.P7 revision petition would reveal that the specific contention of the petitioner is that consequent to the death of his father, the building was partitioned by the appellant and his brother and that on a physical verification of the building, it can be clearly proved that the buildings are not connected and they are two different buildings and the new building alone need be assessed for taxation purposes. In Ext.P18 revisional order, the finding is to the effect that there is an addition to the existing building and therefore, the assessment should be taken together and hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. But, a perusal of Ext.P18 would reveal that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P7, especially that after the partition, the building has been partitioned between the appellant and his brother and that these two buildings are not connected and they are two separate buildings, is seen considered

4. I view of the above, I am of the opinion that Ext.P18 order is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, Ext.P18 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 2^nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P7 revision petition and pass orders on the same after considering the contention raised by the petitioner as stated in Ext.P7. The 2^nd respondent shall also conduct an inspection through the Officer under him to understand the real factual situation in the subject property. The petitioner will also be free to produce documents in support of his contention, which shall also be duly considered by the 2^nd respondent, while taking a decision as directed above. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the 2^nd respondent as directed above, within an outer limit of three moths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

VIJU A