IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6235 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SELINAMMA THOMAS, MANIYANODIYIL HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 2. THE TAHZILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERAVIPEROOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6235 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner approached this Court challenging the proceedings, particularly Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the second respondent which has been confirmed by the first respondent as per Ext.P3. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the building does not have the stipulated extent so as to impose the tax liability under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 and to compel the petitioner to pay luxury tax as contemplated therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed only by reckoning the area which remains as an 'open terrace' uncovered and unsupported on sides, open with tin roof and the same is not liable to be included as part of the 'plinth area' by virtue of the law declared W.P.(C) No.6235 of 2010 - 2 - by this Court as per the decision rendered in Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT 295). 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents as well. 4. Obviously, Ext.P3 order was passed by the first respondent, also referring to the fact that the Circular sought to be relied on by the petitioner in respect of his claim was issued only on 5.3.2009; whereas the construction of the building was completed on 28.8.2008 and hence no retrospective operation could be given to the said Circular. The finding and reasoning given by the first respondent in Ext.P3 do not appear to be correct or proper in view of the law declared by this Court as per the decision cited supra, wherein the issue was whether the 'terrace' portion which is only having a roof, but unsupported by walls forming part of the residential building can be reckoned as part of the plinth area so as to fix the coverage. This issue was answered in the negative. The Government also thought it fit to W.P.(C) No.6235 of 2010 - 3 - issue a Circular so as to guide the departmental authorities as to the correct legal position, which advantage was sought to be pressed into service from the part of the petitioner as well. The observation essentially made by the first respondent was that, only subsequent to the completion of the building, that the Circular was issued, whereas and the correct position of law had been declared by this Court vide the decision cited supra. Every Subordinate Courts and such other authorities in Kerala are bound by the declaration of law made by this Court. This being the position, this Court finds that Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the second respondent and Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent/appellate authority cannot have any valid existence, being contrary to the above mandate. Accordingly, Exts.P1 and P3 are set aside and the second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the decision cited supra. Final orders in this regard shall be passed, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as W.P.(C) No.6235 of 2010 - 4 - expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns