IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 20311 of 2001(R) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SRI.K.SHAMBU EMBRANTHIRI, KARAKKAT ILLAM, KEEZHUR AMSON, PAYANCHERRY DESOM, ATHIYIL P.O., IRITTY. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1) STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2) REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALLASSERY. 3) TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.32911 OF 2001 IN OP.NO.20311 OF 2001-R. DISMISSED. 18.1.2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: Copy of the registered agreement doc.No.2287/94, dtd.25.8.1994. P2: Copy of the ownership certificate issued by the Panchayat, dtd.26.9.97. P2(a): Copy of the ownership certificate issued by the Panchayat, dtd.26.9.97. P2(b): Copy of the ownership certificate issued by the Panchayat, 26.9.97. P2(c): Copy of the ownership certificate issued by the Panchayat, 26.9.97. P2(d): Copy of the ownership certificate issued by the Panchayat, 26.9.97. P3: Copy of the representation filed along with the return, dtd.nil. P4: Copy of the assessment order, dtd.23.2.2001. P4(a): Copy of the demand notice, dtd.23.2.2001. P5: Copy of the application for reference to the District Court under Sec.12 of the Building Tax Act, dtd. Nil. P6: Copy of the demand notice, dated 27.6l.2001. P7: Copy of the application filed by the petitioner's advocate, dtd.5.7.2001. P8: Copy of the order of the 2nd respondent, dtd.10.4.2001. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Nil. ( true copy ) P.A. TO JUDGE. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No.20311 OF 2001-R. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of assessment which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority as per Ext.P8. The building in question is constructed by an agreement with petitioner's wife and children who are the co-owners of the property. Parties entered into the agreement Ext.P1 for construction of a multi-storied commercial building. In Ext.P1 there is an assertion that the construction cost will be met separately by the respective owners. The complaint of the petitioner is that ignoring the statutory prescriptions in the matter and without verification of the real aspects, Ext.P4 order was passed by the assessing authority and Ext.P4(a) is the consequential demand notice issued. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and also Ext.P5 application under Section 12 of the Kerala Building Tax Act was moved before the appellate authority for reference to the District Court. O.P.No.20311 OF 2001-R. 2 2. The petitioner has produced along with CMP.No.40249/2001 Ext.P8 copy of the order passed by the Revenue Division Officer rejecting the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the findings entered in Ext.P8, further pointing out that the same are far from satisfactory as none of the contentions were properly considered by the R.D.O. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also, who pointed out that the petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence in support of his claim. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that in the light of the decision of this Court reported in Bavasons Constructions (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007(3) KLT 101) also the proceedings will have to be nullified and a direction has to be issued to make a reassessment, in accordance with the principles stated in the judgment. Since the petitioner has got a remedy of filing revision before the District Collector, I feel that petitioner should be relegated to the said remedy. Therefore, if the petitioner files a revision petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the District Collector will consider on its merit and dispose O.P.No.20311 OF 2001-R. 3 of the same within a further period of five months from the date of receipt of the revision petition. The petitioner will be free to raise all contentions including the contention based on the decision reported in Bavasons Constructions (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007(3) KLT 101). The recovery proceedings against the petitioner will stand stayed till orders are passed and communicated in the revision petition. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/