IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1221 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.S.SIDHARDHAN, J.J.BHAVAN, UZHUVA, PATTANAKKAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN: 688 531. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 1221 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext. P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act fixing the plinth area, casting huge liability upon the petitioner, assessing the residential building of the petitioner, wrongly reckoning the area of the 'terrace portion' of the building having a roof, but without any enclosure, which is not liable to be reckoned as 'plinth area' under Section 2 (k) of the Act for fixation of the liability. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first installment of Rs.1350/- as scheduled in Ext.P1 order was satisfied by the petitioner as borne by Ext.P2 receipt. The petitioner filed Ext. P3 application for rectification of the mistake before the first respondent himself, as provided under Section 15 of the Kerala Building Tax Act. However, the first respondent W.P.(C) No. 1221 OF 2010 2 after considering Ext. P3 application rejected the same as per Ext.P4 holding that the remedy of the petitioner, if aggrieved in any manner, was only by filing appeal as provided under the Statute . The petitioner is now before this Court stating that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Padmanabhan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2009(1) KLT 295). 2,. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who sought to sustain Ext.P4 order passed by the first respondent. 3. The only question to be considered in the Writ Petition is whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory authority by filing the appeal when the legal position stands settled in view of the dictum laid down by the decision cited supra. As per the said verdict, the terrace portion, though covered by a roof to protect the building from sun and rains, is not liable to be included as part of the plinth area under Section 2(k) of the statute and for the purpose of assessment under Sections 5 and 5A of the Act. This being the position, the matter is liable to be reconsidered by the assessing authority in W.P.(C) No. 1221 OF 2010 3 the light of the decision cited supra. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order Ext. P1 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to re- consider the matter, in the light of the law declared by this Court in Padmanabhan vs. State of Kerala [2009(1) KLT 295], after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which course shall be pursued and finalised, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk