IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17521 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAVINDRAKURUP, RAVINDRAVILASAM, NADUVILA MURI, PORUVAZHI, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. THAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUR TALUK, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (BUILDINGS), KARUNAGAPPALLY. (ADDL. R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 23.7.2010 IN W.P.(C) 17521 OF 2010) R1 TO R3 & ADDL. R4 BY - SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 17521/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE COMPLETED BUILDING WITH PLINTH AREA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.2.2005. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B1-1582/2004 DATED 11.8.2005 F THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1050/2006/K.Dis DATED 29.9.2008. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 11.11.2008. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.5.2009. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.7.2009 RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPODENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEASUREMENT PLAN PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR AND THE DECISION NOTE THEREON. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER L5 57440/08/DIS. DATED 22.2.2010 AND RECEIVED ON 22.4.2010. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.12.2003 OF TE PORUVAZHI VILLAGE. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.8.2004 OF THE PORUVAZHI VILLAGE. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.8.2005 OF PORUVAZHI VILLAGE. EXT.P13 TRU COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16.12.2005 OF THE PORUVAZHI VILLAGE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. knc/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. = = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 17521 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner has come up before this Court, after several rounds of litigations before the statutory authorities, to have the matter settled in connection with the liability to pay the building tax/luxury tax under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the total plinth area of the building as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act does not exceed 278.7 M2 so as to attract the liability to pay luxury tax under Section 5A. The assessment was finalised by the third respondent without any regard to the actual plinth area which, hence, was challenged by filing an appeal. Since interference was declined, petitioner preferred a revision petition before the first respondent and after considering the facts and circumstances, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to have it finalised afresh as per Ext.P2 order. 3. Pursuant to the above remand, the matter was reconsidered by the third respondent and after giving eligible reduction, particularly, with regard WP(C) 17521/2010 2 to the car porch, the plinth area was still considered to be above the 278.7 M2, attracting luxury tax and the liability was hence confirmed. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the second respondent which was dismissed and thereafter, he approached the first respondent by filing a revision. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner made a request before the first respondent to cause measurement of the plinth area of the building with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor, which was allowed and the Taluk Surveyor, after effecting measurement, filed a report stating that the plinth area is less than required extent so as to attract tax liability under Section 5A. Doubting the correctness of the report of the Taluk Surveyor, the first respondent got the plinth area re-measured by deputing the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), who effected measurement on 22.12.2009 and submitted a report which revealed that the plinth area exceeded 278.7M2. Based on the said report, the revision petition was dismissed by the first respondent, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record and also on instructions received, that the course pursued by the first respondent is on the basis of the actual facts and figures and the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrng WP(C) 17521/2010 3 and misconceived. Whether the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) had superchecked the measurement with prior notice and in the presence of the petitioner is not discernible from the proceedings available before this Court. In view of the different reports submitted by different Governmental authorities, this Court finds that the matter requires re-consideration and the 'area' measured by a Qualified Engineer to have a finality to the issue. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P9 passed by the first respondent is set aside and the first respondent is directed to cause the measurement to be effected by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (Buildings), Karunagappally, who is stated as the concerned authority, having jurisdiction over the area in question (as pointed out by the Government Pleader) and the proceedings shall be reconsidered and finalised by the first respondent pursuant to the report to be obtained from the said authority. So as to facilitate further steps, the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (Buildings), Karunagappally, is 'suo motu' impleaded as Additional 4th respondent. The learned Government Pleader has also appeared on behalf of the said 4th respondent. The additional 4th respondent, on getting information from the first respondent in this regard, shall effect the measurement of the building of the petitioner, after giving notice to all concerned including the petitioner as well as the third respondent and a report shall be submitted before the first WP(C) 17521/2010 4 respondent within one month from the date of getting the intimation in this regard. On getting the report as stated above, Ext.P5 revision petition shall be reconsidered and finalized by the first respondent, after giving an opportunity to both the parties, within one month thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-