IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 23921 of 2005(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ABDUL KAREEM.K. AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.P.MUHAMMED HAJI, SAFEENA MANZIL, VADAKKUMBAD P.O. THRIKKARIPPUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA P.O. THALIPPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MATHEW VADAKKEL FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.23921/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 12/99. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 10/12/2002. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP.NO.833/03 DTD. 3/12/03 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER WITH REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND RECOVERY NOTICE. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R1A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 11/4/05. EXT.R1B TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.D2/9631/97 DTD. 13/5/2005. EXT.R1C TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER IN FORM DTD. 14/6/05. P.R.RAMAN,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.23921 OF 2005 -------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 produced in this case was an order rectifying Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is dated 15/12/1999. Three years period in terms of Section 15 of the Building Tax Act expired on 14/12/2002. However, Ext.P2 order was passed on 10/12/2002 within the period of three years. However, Ext.P2 was vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Impugning Ext.P2, petitioner preferred an original petition (O.P.No.833/2003) before this Court which ended in Ext.P3 judgment. Ext.P2 was quashed accepting the contention that the petitioner was not heard in the matter, and the matter was remanded to the lower authority for fresh consideration. It was specifically directed that it is open to the petitioner to raise all the contentions excluding the contention regarding the bar of limitation pursuant to the direction issued in this judgment before the lst respondent. However it was open for him to contend that Ext.P2 order is barred by limitation. In other words, if Ext.P2 was passed beyond the period of three years, then only the petitioner can succeed. It is contended that once Ext.P2 is quashed -2- WP(C).No.23921/2005 and it is not shown that fresh order was not passed within three years after Ext.P1. But that contention is fore-closed by the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment in this regard and the time pursuant to the judgment cannot be taken for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation. Petitioner however did not challenge the judgment in appeal and it has become final. In such circumstances, the only question arises for consideration is whether Ext.P2 was passed on 10/12/2002 within the period of limitation. In other words, by virtue of Ext.P3 judgment the present order stands in the position of Ext.P2 for all other reasons. I have already found that 10/12/2002 is within three years from Ext.P1. 3. The next contention advanced by the petitioner was that Ext.P1 was passed reckoning the plinth area of 1437.23sq.meters. The audit party only provided the information based on which revision is made. But the basis where the present order under Section 15 is that some area is excluded which came to the notice of the assessing authority by virtue of an audit conducted. Ext.P2 clearly shows that the assessing authority applied its mind and thought that the area covered for the passage is not includable for the purpose of assessment, which opinion was changed based on the audit party's objection. This is not a ground for rectification. -3- WP(C).No.23921/2005 This is only a case of re-assessment, which is not permissible under Section 15. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed on that ground. Writ Petition is allowed as above. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. kcv.