IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 31129 of 2008(E) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DR.M.BHASI, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SEIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RESIDING AT TYPE 1 NO 6 COCHIN UNIVERSITY QUARTERS, COCHIN UNIVERSITY PO, KOCHI 682022. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THASILDAR, KANNAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, TRIKKAKARA (NORTH) VILLAGE, TRIKKAKARA (NORTH) VILLAGE OFFFICE, EDAPALLY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 31129 OF 2008 E -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P3(a) and P3(b). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is working as a Professor in Cochin University. Petitioner purchased a Flat vide Ext.P1 Deed dated 24.1.2002. Ext.P2 is the Memo of the Secretary, Kalamassery Municipality produced in support of the claim of change of ownership. It is stated that the petitioner was residing in the said building till 16.6.2003. It is stated that during that time, the petitioner was receiving communications in respect of electricity and telephone bills regularly. It was while so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 series. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 petition. Petitioner preferred Ext.P5 Appeal and Ext.P6 is the order passed by the District Collector. It is stated that the petitioner preferred WPC.31129/08 E 2 Appeal before the RDO. That was also rejected as it was barred by limitation. A Statement is filed by the first respondent Tahsildar. Learned Government Pleader would submit that actually notice addressed to the petitioner was received by one Preetha Thampi on 8.1.2007. Thus, this appears to probabilise the case of the petitioner that the action is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Of course, the petitioner has produced Ext.P9 agreement. Going by the agreement, the plinth area agreed to be built appears to be 1100 Sq. Ft. However, Ext.P3 series appear to support the case of the petitioner that the area is less than 100 Sq. Metres per Flat which will entitle the petitioner to exemption from payment of tax. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not served with notice, I feel that Exts.P3, P3(a) and P3(b) in relation to the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I declare Exts.P3, P3(a) and P3(b) as regards the petitioner are illegal. But, this is with liberty to the Authority to issue proper notice in the matter and take a decision in WPC.31129/08 E 3 accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge