IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 12406 of 2001(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. POPULAR PLANTATIONS, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, THRISSUR, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER JOHN K PAUL BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGODE. 3. TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG TALUK, HOSDURG. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 19806 OF 2001 IN OP 12406 OF 2001 DISMISSED 4.1.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. D.DIS. 8502/82 (P.T. 2/82) DATED 15.8.1982 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, KASARAGODE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. D.DIS. 8504/82 (PTDA 4/82) DATED 17.8.82 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS D.DIS. 12023/86-E DATED 31.10.86 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGODE. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS D.DIS. 12024/86-EDATED 31.10.1986 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 22.7.87 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 3(3) OF THE KERALA PLANTATION (ADDL. TAX) ACT, RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 19.11.1991 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P6 NOTICE. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. REF.1 835/78/C4/ DASTED 16.7.92 SENT BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN MFA 72/93 DATED 7.4.94 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.6.99 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 5.8.1999 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P10 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.9.99 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.9.99 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.4.2000 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP 25542 AND 25539 OF 1999 EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.7.2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALLOWING THE APPEALS FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 2.11.2000 EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 222.12.2000 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P16. 3 EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.2.2001 ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN FORM II ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 12406 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P18 order whereunder the Tahsildar has reconfirmed the demand of plantation tax from the petitioner from 1978-1979 t o 1990-91 based on orders of remand in appeal. I heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. Petitioner's case is that the land vested in Government as a forest by virtue of the Vesting Act and final order of the Forest Tribunal, though challenged in this Court by filing M.F.A.No. 108/2006 is in favour of the State. However, on going through Ext.P18 I find the Tahsildar has made assessment based on inspection report prepared by the Revenue Inspector wherein he has specified the details of crop and the extent of land cultivated by petitioner during the relevant years. In fact, petitioner's consistent case is that land has been in possession, enjoyment and cultivation and that is the basis of contest in the MFA also. The liability for plantation tax is attracted under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Plantation Act, 1960 for the plantations held by a person on 2 the corresponding valuation date. Therefore whoever is found to be in possession of land cultivated with crop that attracts plantation tax under the Act is liable to pay tax irrespective of nature of title or whether the land is ultimately claimed by the State under the Vesting Act. In the circumstances, and consistent with petitioner's own case and in view of the findings of the Revenue Inspector in his report relied on by the Tahsildar, he rightly levied plantation tax on the petitioner. Ext.P18 order is therefore to be upheld and I do so. O.P. is therefore devoid of any merit and is dismissed. However recovery should be limited to the balance amount after reckoning the payment already made by the petitioner. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 3