IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15487 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABDULLAKUTTY MALLIKKAN, S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN HAJI,'AKVAS',SARVATH ROAD, PUSHPAGIRI,TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASSESSING AUTHORITY,TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KANNUR. 3. TAHSILDAR,TALIPARAMBA. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER,TALIPARAMBA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15487 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner constructed a residential building in the year, 2003 and the assessment of the 'building tax' under Section 5 was completed fixing the liability as per Ext.P1, which in turn was satisfied by the petitioner. Subsequently, in the year 2008, the petitioner provided a aluminium roofing without any sidewall to protect the building from the heat and rains. Pursuant to this, the assessing authority reopened the assessment and accordingly, Ext.P3 fresh assessment order was passed reckoning the aforesaid area of terrace also as forming part of the 'plinth area', thus fixing the total building tax as Rs.12,600/-, besides the liability to satisfy the 'laxury tax' under Section 5 (A), which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the course pursued by the respondents are per se illegal and contrary to the law declared by this Court as per Ext. P6 verdict (Padmanabhan Vs. State of Kerala 2009 (1) KLT 295) 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the fact that the liability to be satisfied in respect of 'terrace portion', unsupported by any side walls stands answered in W.P. (C) No. 15487 of 2010 : 2 : favour of the assessee, as per the dictum laid down by this Court in the decision cited supra., the question to be dealt with is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the said benefit, which is matter to be decided by the 3rd respondent in the light of law declared by this Court. Accordingly, Ext.P3, Ext. P3 (a) and Ext.P8 are set aside. The third respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after conducting a spot inspection with prior notice to the petitioner and the proceedings as above shall be finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed. No cost. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd