IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 8093 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.T. RANJITH, S/O.K.T. PURUSHOTTAMAN, KOYILOTH THEKKEYIL HOUSE, AIR ROAD, PUTHIYANGADI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS MR.SRINATH GIRISH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.8093 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 appellate order issued by the 1st respondent on an appeal filed under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. As per Ext.P2 order of assessment, building belonging to the petitioner was assessed computing the total plinth area as 1120.84 Sq: Mtrs:. Contention of the petitioner is that the plinth area adopted for the purpose of assessment is not true and correct. According to the petitioner the building is having only 2 floors and as per the approved plan the total plinth area is only 670 Sq: Mtrs:. In Ext.P3 appeal filed against the assessment it is specifically contended that the petitioner has not made any deviation from the plan and the assessment is made based on a report submitted by the Village Officer which contained incorrect statements. The 1st respondent while disposing of the appeal adverted to the contentions that the plinth area as per the approved plan issued by the Corporation is only 670 Sq: Mtrs: and that the plinth area as per the completion report is only 651.14 Sq: W.P.(C).8093/09-F 2 Mtrs:. But the appeal was dismissed without making any enquiry into correctness of the dispute, merely observing that the assessment files revealed that the appellant's representative had admitted the plinth area at the time of hearing before the assessing authority. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that as per the Village Officer's report the building in question is having a plinth area of 1120.84 Sq: Mtrs: comprised of 334.44 Sq: Mtrs: in the ground floor, 384.27 Sq: Mtrs: in the first floor and 374.77 Sq: Mtrs: in the second floor along with staircase area of 27.36 Sq: Mtrs:. It is further stated that while finalising the assessment a representative of the petitioner appeared pursuant to notice issued and submitted a return in Form-II in which the total plinth area is conceded only as 669.73 Sq: Mtrs: comprising of the area of ground floor, first floor and staircase. But it is stated that the assessment is completed with 1120.84 Sq: Mtrs: as per the report of the Village Officer. It is further mentioned in the counter statement that when the representative of the petitioner appeared before the Tahsildar for hearing it is conceded that covering to the roof area is made with sheets, and it is stated that such area is also included for making the assessment. W.P.(C).8093/09-F 3 3. It seems that the dispute is regarding existence of second floor or rather the dispute is regarding as to whether the second floor area covered with sheets is liable to be assessed or not. Going by Ext.P4 order of the appellate authority, it is noticed that the appellate authority has not considered the contentions in this regard nor he had attempted to make any physical verification in order to ascertain the disputed factual aspects. Under the above circumstances I am of the opinion that the appellate authority has not properly adverted to the contentions nor had properly applied its mind while disposing of the appeal. Therefore the matter needs re-consideration at the hands of the 1st respondent. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P4 order of the appellate authority. The matter is remitted back for fresh consideration and disposal. The 1st respondent shall consider the contentions and if necessary, shall make physical verification regarding the factual aspect. The appeal shall be disposed of after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A fresh decision in this regard shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C).8093/09-F 4 5. It is submitted that the petitioner had already deposited the entire amount as assessed in Ext.P2. Needless to say that the liability shall be dependent on the outcome of the fresh decision to be taken by the 1st respondent and the amount shall be appropriated in accordance with such decision. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb