IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22471 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.S.MURALY, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, AGED , PARVATHY BHAVAN, T.C.24/139, TSGRA NO.9, THYCADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL MR. VARGHESE PARAMBIL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TAHASILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K. BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 22471 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of 2.10 cents of land lying close to the property of 2.4 cents owned by his mother. The petitioner and the mother submitted separate applications for constructing two buildings and after considering the two separate plans produced in this regard, the local authority (Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram) had granted two separate Permits as well. On the basis of the Permits issued, the petitioner and his mother completed the construction and filed two separate returns as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975. However, the concerned village officer submitted a report showing the buildings as a 'single unit'; based on which, the second respondent, without any regard to the actual facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law, passed Ext.P1 order of assessment, whereby the building was assessed as a 'single unit' and the entire tax liability was mulcted on the petitioner. 2. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal, after remitting ¼th of the disputed liability, as borne by Ext.P2 receipt. After considering the merits of the appeal, the appellate authority allowed the appeal as per Ext.P3 order and the matter was remitted to the second respondent WP (C) No. 22471 of 2009 : 2 : for passing fresh orders, after physically verifying the building by the Deputy Tahasilder. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the second respondent has not given any effect to Ext.P2 order passed by the appellate authority and is proceeding with the coercive steps against the petitioner, which is not correct or sustainable. The petitioner has also got a case that, subsequently, the very same respondent/assessing authority has assessed the building belonging to the mother of the petitioner, fixing a tax liability of Rs. 2025/- and the said amount was remitted by the assessee as borne by Ext.P6 receipt. This being the position, there cannot be any wider liability in respect of the building belonging to the petitioner, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner; asserting that the 'plinth area' in respect of both the buildings is one and the same. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. The sequence of events and the relevant facts and figures have been meticulously adverted to by the appellate authority, while passing Ext.P3 order. The second respondent/ assessing authority is very much bound by the orders passed by the appellate authority and the proceedings are to be finalized in tune with Ext.P3 order. In the said circumstances, the second respondent is directed to finalize the proceedings and to pass modified assessment order pursuant to WP (C) No. 22471 of 2009 : 3 : Ext.P3, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that till such modified assessment order is passed, all further coercive proceedings, stated as being pursued against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance. The liability to pay any further amount by the petitioner, as well as the liability to refund the amount, if the same has already been effected by the petitioner is excess, will depend upon the order to be passed by the second respondent as above. It it is found that the amount deposited by the petitioner is excess, such excess extent shall be refunded to the petitioner within a further period of one month thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd