IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 381 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.27724/1999 Dated 13/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ M/S.MARATT LIMITED,(FORMERLY MARATT RUBBER LIMITED) MAMPAD, NILAMBUR,MALAPPURAM, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT] -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PLANTATION TAX ACT,PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM, APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PLANTATION TAX ACT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SPL. G.P. SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.381 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the plantation tax assessments of the appellant confirmed in appeals for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1988-89. We have heard Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The first grievance of the appellant is that average 130 rubber trees are taken as planted in every acre of land based on data available with the Rubber Board. The claim was rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that Rubber Board is the main agency guiding and promoting rubber cultivation in the country with even financial assistance given to planters. We do not find any ground to interfere with this because it is common knowledge that planters plant only more number of trees than what is permitted by the Rubber Board. In fact, 130 could be the minimum number of plants that can be planted in an 2 acre of land. Therefore, this does not call for any modification. The second contention raised by the appellant is that the area sold in several years is not reduced while making the assessment. The learned Single Judge considered all the assessments and found that there is systematic reduction in number of trees taken for assessment of planted area. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has assumed that the sold areas have been excluded in the assessments. However, we do not think this finding is correct because by the year 1988-89 the appellant sold around 750 acres which is more than 50% of the total extent of 1125.92 acres held by them in the beginning of 1981-82. We feel, if there are mistakes in the assessment with regard to actual extent held by the appellant, the same requires modification. However, we notice that for the year 1982-83 appellant has no claim that they have sold portion of the estate. For the year 1983-84, the extent of land sold is only 17 acres which is not going to affect the determination of liability for above 1000 acres. We, therefore, do not think that there is any justification to modify assessments for 1982-83 and 1983-84. However, from the assessment year 1984-85 onwards, much extent of 3 land is seen sold by the appellant. The reduction in the planted area granted in assessments does not appear to be directly corresponding to the actual extent sold. In the circumstances, we dispose of the appeal directing the Assessing Officer to verify the title deeds for the estate sold from financial year 1983-84 onwards and revise the assessments from financial year 1984-85 to 1988-89 within three months from date of production of copy of this judgment along with copies of transfer deeds by the appellant. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms