IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20717 of 2004(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. JOSEPH S/O. JOSEPH, VARICKAMAKKAL HOUSE, MUTTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. KURIAN S/O. JOSEPH, VARICKAMAKKAL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT VETTILAPPARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL SRI.P.NOOR SEMIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE THAHZILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).20717/2004-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1759/78. EXT.P2: COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3148/78 EXT.P3: COPY OF AGREEMENT EXT.P4: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXT.P5: COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER. EXT.P6: COPY OF REVISIONAL ORDER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C). No.20717/2004-N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order passed by the revisional authority. The above order was passed in a statutory revision filed by the petitioners challenging Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in an appeal filed by them. 2. The petitioners are owners of different properties in Survey No.287/4 of Muttam Village, viz. the first petitioner is the owner of 22 cents of land and the second petitioner is the owner of 40 cents of land. The properties are lying side by side on the western side of the Thodupuzha-Idukki road. They obtained the properties by virtue of separate sale deed Nos. 1759/1978 and 3148/1978, the copies of which are produced as Exts.P1 and P2 respectively. Thereafter, a shopping complex was decided to be constructed in it. They executed an agreement on 28/09/1988 incorporating relevant clauses for the construction of the shopping complex. According to them, out of the eight rooms in the ground floors, four rooms on the southern side were to be constructed on the first petitioner's plot and and the remaining W.P.(C).NO.20717/2004-N -:2:- four rooms on the northern side were to be constructed in the property of the second petitioner. The other details as regards the construction are also detailed in the writ petition. 3. It is further asserted that the cost of construction was met separately by the petitioners. But the first respondent assessed the building under the Building Tax Act, as a single unit and this was challenged in appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who rejected the appeal as per Ext.P5 order. 4. In Ext.P6, what is recorded is that there are no grounds to alter the order of the appellate authority. Thus, Ext.P6 order does not reflect the application of mind by the revisional authority to the grounds raised in the revision petition. Being a statutory authority, the revisional authority was bound to consider the matter independent of the findings recorded by the appellate authority. Otherwise the revisional remedy will be a mere formality. The petitioners point out that there are documents to show that the building cannot be assessed as a single unit. There are other grounds also to challenge the validity of Ext.P6. 5. In that view of the matter, I quash Ext.P6. The third respondent-District Collector is directed to reconsider the revision afresh with notice to the petitioners and affording them a reasonable opportunity for hearing. The petitioners will be allowed to produce W.P.(C).NO.20717/2004-N -:3:- additional materials, if any, before the revisional authority. The revisional authority will pass final orders within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders as directed above are passed, the interim order passed by this Court will continue to be in force. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms