TIBREWAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 29.6.1982 passed by the Director (Appellate Authority) Land & Building Tax Department and the order/judgment dated 28.5.1990 (Annexure 6) passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that respondents No 1 to 3, who are real brothers, filed separate returns in individual capacity for the property in question mentioned in para 1 of the petition. The Assessing Authority passed the assessment order dated May 31, 1976, whereby, the property, in question, was assessed as one unit. The said order was challenged in an appeal which was heard and disposed off by the Deputy Director (Appellate Authority), on 22.5.1982. The appeal was partly allowed. The appellate authority treated the property as three separate units on the basis of the family settlement which had taken place between the parties, in the year 1972. The market value of the land was also assessed @ Rs. 250/- per sq.m., instead of Rs. 500/- per sq. m. Hence, separate assessment of the share of each of the respondents No.l to 3 was made. This order was challenged by the Department by preferring a revision petition which was heard and disposed off by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur and the same was dismissed on May 28, 1990. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority, as well as, the Additional Divisional Commissioner committed serious illegality in holding that there were three separate units in assessing the same, as such. Learned counsel argued that the entire property was being used as one unit and it should have been assessed as one unit, though it might be owned by three brothers having one-third share each. It is also contended that there was no justification to assess the valuation of the land @ Rs.250/- per sd m. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. It may be stated here that the appellate authority, as well as, the Divisional Commissioner, in their respective order/judgment, have held that there was a family settlement as back as in the year 1972 and the property in question was divided by metes and bounds between three brothers and they were having separate possession and ownership over their portions. It is true that in the premises a hotel was being run by one person who had taken the premises on rent from each of the brothers. Once the property is divided by metes and bounds between the brothers and they are given possession on their separate shares then the character of the building as one unit is extinguished and each separate share becomes one separate unit in the eyes of law. It does not become one unit simply because it was taken on rent by one person and he started running a hotel therein. The factual position decided by the Appellate Authority and the Additional Divisional Commissioner is that the building belonged to the respondent three brothers and they had their separate shares in the building. Therefore, each of such owners separate tax liability shall be determined, according to his share, as value of property for the purpose of the land and building tax S. 3 (1-A) reads as under : "For removal of doubt it is declared that the tax shall be levied on land or building or both separately as units." The finding of fact arrived at the Appellate Authority and the Additional Divisional Commissioner about the partition of the building by metes and bounds between three brothers cannot be disturbed in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The market value of the land assessed by the Appellate Authority or the Additional Divisional Commissioner is also a question of fact.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition has no merit and is dismissed summarily.;