IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37888 of 2007(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.V.JOY, S/O. GEE VARGHESE KATHANAR, AGED 56, KALLAPPARA HOUSE, MORAKKALA, KUMARAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.T.B.THANKAPPAN MR.V.P.RAMESAN SMT.P.V.RADHAMANI MR.T.T.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.P.PRADEEP (TAX) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.37888/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DT. 13.9.93. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 18.10.96 TO THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.G5/15204/96 DT. 17.2.97. P4:- COPY OF THE IST PAYMENT RECEIPT NO.76 DT. 6.3.97 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU. P5:- COPY OF THE 2ND PAYMENT RECEIPT NO.10 DT. 24.12.97 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1.12.97 DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER BY OF THE RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA.. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER K.DIS 86746/97/810 DT. 18.3.98 DISMISSING THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER , ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. P8:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 16.3.06 BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN OP. 7738/98. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER G5-3186/98 DT. 29.6.06 OF THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU REJECTING THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER IN PURSUANCE OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. 7738/98. P10:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.A3/7/06 DT. 27.6.06 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH. P11:- COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER NO.A7-5495/06/K.DIS DT. 16.5.07, PASSED BY RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA. P12:- COPY OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER NO.810-36055/07 /K.DIS DT. 1.8.07 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 37888 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to have constructed a residential building in 1993-94. The building was assessed to building tax in 1996. The rate of tax was calculated as per the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act after amendment in 1996. The petitioner challenged the assessment before the appellate and revisional authorities. Having failed to get the assessment modified, the petitioner filed O.P.No. 7738/1998 before this Court. This Court, by Ext. P8 judgment, directed the 1st respondent to re-consider the matter, after permitting the petitioner to adduce additional evidence to prove that the building was completed during 1993-94. Thereafter, the petitioner produced some additional documents, which did not find favour with the 1st respondent and by Ext. P9 order the 1st respondent confirmed the earlier assessment. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P9 order. 2. The petitioner's contention is that by Ext. P1 certificate, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat, within whose jurisdiction the house is situate, has certified that the building was completed during the year 1993-94. Therefore, the same coupled with the additional evidence, which the petitioner has now produced, would conclusively prove that the building was constructed at least before the amendment came into force in 1996. Hence, the building should have been assessed to building tax at the rate applicable in 1993-94, is the contention raised by the petitioner. 3. This is opposed by the the learned Government Pleader, who would submit that Ext. P1 can no longer be relied upon insofar as in Ext. P8 judgment, this Court has accepted the contention of the respondents that, that document is not completely reliable. Therefore, unless the petitioner produces sufficient material to prove the date of completion of the building, the petitioner is not entitled to W.P.C. No. 37888/07 -: 2 :- any reliefs in this writ petition. He would further point out that it is the duty of the owner of the building to file a return under the Kerala Building Tax Act as soon as the building is completed. In this case, the petitioner filed the return only in 1996, which would raise a presumption that the building was completed in 1996. Unless the petitioner produces cogent proof to upset that presumption, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for, is the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. In Ext. P8 judgment, this Court considered the reliability of Ext. P1 certificate from the Panchayat. This Court held that since the certificate is dated 13-9-1993, the Executive Officer could not have validly certified that the construction of the building was completed during 1993-94 and therefore, the said document is not completely reliable. When this Court had entered such a finding and permitted the petitioner to adduce further evidence, without some other evidence in support of his contention, the petitioner cannot succeed. As is clear from Ext. P9, what the petitioner has subsequently produced are, (1) ration card for the period 1991-1995, (2) present ration card, (3) certificate from the Panchayat and (4) receipt for payment of property tax to the Panchayat. I have gone through Ext. P10 certificate issued by the Grama Panchayat. That does not categorically state that the building was completed in 1993-94 as claimed by the petitioner. It only shows that the building No. IV/251 was prior to 1993-94 assessed as Building Nos. IV/208 and IV/268. That does not prove with any amount of certainty that the building was constructed in 1993-94. As such, even after remand, the petitioner was not able to prove with reliable documents that the date of completion of the construction of the building was prior to the W.P.C. No. 37888/07 -: 3 :- amendment in 1996. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader the fact that the petitioner filed the return only in 1996 would give rise to a presumption that the building was completed in 1996. Insofar as the petitioner had not been able to prove that the date of completion of the building was prior to the amendment in 1996, I do not think that the petitioner can succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/