IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7017 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SOMINI, W/O.P.K.RAGHAVAN, SOMINI MANDIRAM, PANDINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 2. THE KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY, SC,ANCHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR R1-2 GP K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).7017/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner submits that he is the owner of a building bearing No.KP-XIV/259 of Kottarakkara Grama Panchayat. Ext.P1, the demand notice for the building tax, for the period 2005-06, was issued demanding a total sum of Rs.44,657/-. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P2 order, the standing committee reduced the tax to Rs.7,778/- and by Ext.P3 order, the Panchayat Council further reduced the tax to Rs.4,860/-. It is stated that despite reductions so given, revenue recovery was initiated by Ext.P6 demanding the amount specified in Ext.P1. 3. Petitioner also submits that in the meanwhile, the Government introduced One Time Settlement Scheme, enabling persons like him to settle the liability by paying a much lesser amount. It is stated that once the scheme was introduced, he submitted Ext.P7 application to the 2nd respondent requesting to extend the benefit of One Time Settlement on which a decision is W.P.(C).7017/10 2 yet to be taken. It is stated that if the request is allowed he can settle the liability till 2011 by paying Rs.29,160/- which, according to the petitioner, will discharge the entire liability. 4. If, as stated by the petitioner, the One Time Settlement Scheme is introduced and he is otherwise eligible for the same and has submitted an application, there is no reason why the 2nd respondent shall not consider Ext.P7 application made by the petitioner. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 will be kept in abeyance. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs