IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 37018 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ASSAINAR, S/O. ABDU, KOODAYIL HOUSE, POST PAYYOLI THURAYUR, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER, SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THAHSILDAR, KOYILANDY, PIN - 673 101. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001. 4. SECRETARY, REVENUE (SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.37018/2010-B: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER RULE 8 (1) DTD. 09/03/06 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE R.2. BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 25/09/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 37018 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the original, appellate and revisional orders passed under the Kerala Building Tax Act, demanding luxury tax in respect of the house constructed by the petitioner. The petitioner disputes the plinth area calculated by the respondents. The petitioner's whole contention was against the calculation of the plinth area. But the respondents have considered the matter in respect of assessment of area covered by the kitchen and, therefore, there is no application of mind, is the petitioner's contention. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. As I have already stated, the petitioner's only contention is regarding calculation of plinth area. Three authorities have concurrently confirmed the plinth area. The petitioner has not produced any materials before me to prima facie show that measurement of plinth area conducted by the lower authorities is in any way wrong. In this writ petition I cannot take evidence regarding plinth area. Further, the petitioner does not allege any mala fides against the 1st respondent in measuring the plinth area. Therefore, I cannot interfere with the finding of fact regarding the actual plinth w.p.c.37018/11 - : 2 :- area. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge