IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 853 of 2008(H) {IN WPC.7847/2006 OF THIS COURT} .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (SPECIAL), ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOCHI. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- THE PULLANGODE RUBBER AND PRODUCE CO., LTD, ASPINWALL BUILDING, CALVETTY, KOCHI 682001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SR.MANAGER, TAXATION, K.P.DIVAKARAN. BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 853 of 2008 in W.P.(C).7847 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of August 2008 O R D E R Having heard the learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the writ petitioner, I do not find any grounds to review the judgment as such. 2. Learned Government Pleader presses into service Rule 4(viii) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules to justify the demand for collection charges. He further submits that the validity of Rule 4 (viii) was not the subject matter of challenge in any other writ petition. I find that Rule 4(viii) was not a matter of fact pressed into service at the time of hearing of the writ petition. But, prima facie, I am of the view that, the arguments which were found to be not weighty enough by this court in relation to Rule 5, would apply to Rule 4 (viii) also. It is not necessary to finally pronounce on this aspect, in as much as the parties have not joined issue on this aspect in the instant case. But, nevertheless, I do not find any ground to take a different view from what I have already taken in the judgment. I had taken note of the RP No.853 OF 2008 in W.P.(C).7847 of 2006 -: 2 :- fact that both State and writ petitioner were respondents in the land acquisition awards and ultimately the writ petitioner had satisfied the award by depositing the amount in court. For all these reasons, I do not find any grounds to review the judgment. But, I make it clear that, I have not considered the issue, which the learned Government Pleader submits, arises from Rule 4(viii) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules either in this Review Petition or in the judgment which has led to this Review Petition as such. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE) sk/- //true copy// P.S. To Judge