IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 27339 of 2006(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEELA SASIDHARAN, T.S.MAHAL, AIKKARAKONAM, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND FOR R.1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF APPROVED PLAN OF BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R1 DT.8.3.2004. P3: .DO. R2 DT.18.1.2005. P4: .DO. R3 DT.31.12.2005. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.27339 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner's case is that the plinth area assessed is far in excess of the actual plinth area of the building. Counsel has relied on the approved plan wherein the approved plinth area is much below the assessed area. Even if construction is made in excess of the plinth area approved, the petitioner is liable to pay building tax on the actually constructed plinth area of the building. Since petitioner has paid full building tax, petitioner is given one opportunity to get the plinth area measured by a qualified Engineer of her own and the measurement should be with reference to the definition of plinth area under the statutory provisions and if there is any appreciable variation, the petitioner can make application for rectification before the Tahsildar. If petitioner makes application along with copy of this judgment and along with copy of report of the qualified Engineer about assessment of excess plinth area, the Tahsildar will re-verify the plinth area and carry out correction under Section 15 of the Act. However, if Tahsildar notices that the report produced by the petitioner is wrong, then the Tahsildar will in addition to tax recover cost of rupees three thousand from 2 the petitioner for waisting his time again. I make it clear that there is no scope for exclusion of area which petitioner claims to be used for fire storage or car porch in a commercial building like a hotel which applies only to residential houses. W.P.(C) is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms