IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 31474 of 2002(V) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.A.SLEEBAKUNJU, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.REV.FR.ABRAHAM, KANNETH HOUSE, VADAVUCODE P.O., VIA.PUTHENCRUZE BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SHRI.K.P.PRADEEP, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 31474/2002 ORDER ON CMP NO. 53174/2002 IN O.P.NO. 31474/2002 DISMISSED. 08/01/2008 SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 05/08/2002 ISSUED BY FR.ABRAHAM VALAYIL, KANDANAD DIOCESE. P2 : COPY OF NOTICE G.5-969/2000 DATED 16/07/2002 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT. P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 07/08/2002 SUBMITTED TO FIRST RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF ORDER NO.G5-969/2000 DATED 17/09/2002 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF ORDER IN CMP NO.48466/02 IN O.P.NO. 28466/02 DATED 03/10/2002 PASSED BY HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1A : COPY OF RETURN FILED BY PETITONER. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- O.P. No. 31474 of 2002 ------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The only controversy is with regard to the plinth area of the residential building of petitioner, assessed by Tahsildar. While the case of the petitioner is that the plinth area of the building including the car porch is only 277.32 sq.m., learned Government Pleader submitted that the plinth area originally assessed is 323.87 sq.m. However, according to him, on petitioner’s request, open area in the first floor was excluded and the plinth area was re-fixed as 306.23 sq.m. If the measurement made by the Tahsildar is correct, then petitioner is liable to pay luxury tax. However, if car porch is excluded, the balance plinth area will be below 278.7 sq.m. and in that case petitioner is not liable to pay luxury tax. In view of the controversy, I feel, measurement, has to be ordered, by the Asst. Executive Engineer, PWD, but on condition that if petitioner’s claim is found to be wrong petitioner will be liable to pay cost at Rs.5,000/-. Petitioner is given one more opportunity to measure the plinth area by himself or any person engaged by him and determine the actual plinth area and if assessment is found to be correct, petitioner is bound to accept the order. However, if there is O.P.NO. 31474/2002 -2- any discrepancy in the plinth area assessed, petitioner can make a request along with a copy of this judgment to the Tahsildar for getting the plinth area measured by the Asst. Executive Engineer, PWD. If petitioner submits request as above, measurement will be done by the Asst. Executive Engineer at the request of the Tahsildar and petitioner will be given a copy of the report of measurement by the Asst. Executive Engineer, PWD. If the plinth area measured by the Asst. Executive Engineer, PWD is above 278.7 sq.m., then there will be direction to Tahsildar to recover Rs.5,000/- towards cost from petitioner along with arrears of luxury tax. This original petition is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg