IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9082 of 2009(E) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VASAVAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, HOUSE NO.9/320 SURABHI, VELI, CBSE ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR, FORT KOCHI. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE OFFICE FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 9082 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Assessment of Building Tax completed under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 is under challenge in this writ petition. The limited ground on which the challenge is raised is that, while computing plinth area of the building in question, the terraced portion which is covered with Aluminium sheet was also included. Petitioner relies on the decisions of this Court in, Padmanabhan Vs. State of Kerala (2009(1) KLT 295) and State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M/s.Southern Fisheries Corporation (2011 (1) KHC 794), in order to canvass the position that the area of 'open terrace' covered by sheet could not be reckoned while calculating plinth area for the purpose of assessment of building tax. 2. In the counter affidavit it is admitted that, the plinth area of 325.46 sq. m. is adopted by including the sheeted 2 W.P.(C).No. 9082 of 2009 portion, having plinth area of 98.63 sq.m. However, learned Government Pleader contends that the petitioner had not availed the effective statutory remedy provided. Hence, the challenge against the order of assessment by approaching this Court could not be entertained, is the contention. 3. Considering the settled legal position as well as the averments contained in the counter affidavit, I am of the view that the computation now made including the sheeted portion is not sustainable. Inspite of non-availing of statutory remedy, I am of the view that the assessment requires reconsideration to the extent as mentioned above. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P3 order of assessment and Ext.P5 consequential demand. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh order of assessment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and if necessary after conducting inspection of the building and taking measurement. Needless to say that the terrace portion which is covered through sheet need be excluded if the side walls were not covered and if it 3 W.P.(C).No. 9082 of 2009 is not used as a room. 5. Fresh order of assessment in this regard shall be issued at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/