IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 5411 of 2005(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.P. BAVA, S/O. BAPPUTTY, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. TAHSILDAR, PONANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DEATED 15.3.2004 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 10.8.2004 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 13.9.2004 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN REF.NO.N4-45276/2004 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 5411 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. The main dispute relates to single assessment of one building owned by the petitioner along with his relatives and another building independently owned by him. This is sorted out in favour of the petitioner by the third respondent by making separate assessment for the building jointly owned by the petitioner along with others and the building independently owned by the petitioner. Another dispute raised is with regard to revised assessment of the building owned by the petitioner along with his close relatives on a plinth area of 1425.53 sq. metres. According to the petitioner this building was constructed in stages from 1994 onwards and in the last assessment completed the plinth area assessed was 1274.26 sq. metres. However, when petitioner constructed another building separately, Tahsildar measured both the buildings and revised assessment of the old building to cover up shortage of around 150 sq. metres. Petitioner's case is that original 2 assessment was completed in 1997 and therefore time for rectification of mistake if any in the old assessment is already over. However, Government Pleader pointed out that there is nothing to indicate that building originally assessed consisted of plinth area it now has. In other words, according to him, there is no proof that plinth area of around 150 sq. metres assessed through revision of assessment is not the plinth area additionally constructed to the building. I find force in this contention because the building itself was constructed in stages through additions and there is nothing to prove that building assessed in 1997 had plinth area of 1425.53 sq.metres as against 1274.26 sq. metres originally assessed. In the circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the revised assessement. W.P. is de void of any merit and is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk