IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 10751 of 2005(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- USHA HARIDAS, LORDS HOSPITAL, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANATHAPURAM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CETRITIFCATE NO. A2-1472/2000 DATED 30.9.2000 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KADAKAMPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D4-32312/2002/D.DIS DATED 26.12.2003 OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. D4-32312/2002/D.DIS DATED 26.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.P.NO. 224/99/LSGD DATED 30.11.99 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.1.2004 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D. 5371/2004 DATED 18.5.2004 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D.DIS/ 5371/04/D DATED 7.1.2005 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D.DIS/21055/05/G6/ DATED 20.5.2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISMISSING EXT.P9 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 10751 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Writ Petition is filed challenging rate of tax applied for the building constructed by the petitioner in Kadakampally Grama Panchayath in Trivandrum in the year 1999. The case of the petitioner is that when construction of building was completed, the area remained a Panchayath area and thereafter with effect from 1.10.2000 the area was brought under Trivandrum Corporation. The rate of tax for the purpose of building tax assessment is different for Panchayat and Corporation areas. Admittedly petitioner filed return for building tax after the area was brought under Trivandrum Corporation. However, petitioner maintains that construction was completed prior to 1.10.2000 and so much so building should be assessed at the rate applicable to Panchayath area. However, Government Pleader referred to the District Collector's order wherein the District Collector has clearly stated that as on the date of filing of the return after the area was brought under Corporation petitioner has stated that the building is not yet completed. The District Collector decided the case against the petitioner based on the petitioner's own statement in the return filed. 2 Even though Collector's order is specifically challenged through amendment, petitioner has not chosen to deny the statement of fact made by the Collector in his order. However, counsel for the petitioner submitted that statement of Collector is not correct and petitioner has not made any such statement in the return. Since Collector has referred to the return wherein petitioner appears to have stated that construction of building was not yet completed for want of funds, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness or correctness of the finding of the Collector. Therefore W.P.C. is dismissed confirming the assessment at higher rate based on the finding of admission by the petitioner in the return referred to in the Collector's order that the construction was not completed even as on the date of filing of the return, which is after the area was brought under Corporation. If the Collector has made a false statement, it will be open to the petitioner to file review petition after collecting photocopy of the original return from the Tahsildar. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3