IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 576 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA.14/2009 Dated 02/01/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP ------------------------------------------------ KARUVATTIL YASIR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER MOULAVI, KARUVATTIL HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKANGARA VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.K.P.PRAMOD THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.GIRI, JJ. ----------------------------- R.P.No.576 OF 2009 ----------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. Going by the ground taken and the arguments addressed, we are of the view that the review petitioner is trying for re- hearing of the Writ Petition itself. Whether the building was completely reconstructed or only an additional construction was made after the date of the notification of the provision concerning luxury tax was the dispute considered and decided by the learned Single Judge. The decision went against the review petitioner. It was found that the entire building was reconstructed. The learned Single Judge also provided that if the construction is below the stipulated plinth area, that is, 278.70 m2, he can convince the Tahsildar about that and escape from the liability of paying luxury tax. But, the learned counsel for the review petitioner is canvassing again for the position that there was only an additional construction and therefore, luxury R.P.No.576/2009 2 tax cannot be imposed for the said additional construction, which has a plinth area below 278.70 m2. Having regard to the limited scope of review, we feel that the above contention cannot be examined in this Review Petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ps