IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 15586 of 2006(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.THAJUNEESA, MANAGING PARTNER, A.R.KALYANAMANDAPAM, KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. R1TOR3 BYGOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15586 of 2006(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :- EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 11-3-99 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED OCTOBER, 2003. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 1-3-2005. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-7-2005 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-12-2005 EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27-1-2006 EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-4-2006 EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 12-5-2006 EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-5-2006 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE amk. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.15586 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 24th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner constructed a building in the year 1999. That building was assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act. By Ext.P1, for a plinth area of 1059.80 sq.m., the petitioner was directed to pay building tax of ` 1,62,000/-, which the petitioner paid. Later on, a fresh assessment was made by Ext.P3 for a plinth area of 1863.40 sq.m. The petitioner challenged the same before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Palakkad, who, by Ext.P4 order, remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration insofar as the petitioner was assessed to building tax for a plinth area of 1855.305 sq.m., which, according to the Revenue Divisional Officer, did not appear to be correct. The petitioner contended before the RDO that since the re-assessment is under Section 15(1) of the Act and more than four years have elapsed, the assessment is not sustainable. But the RDO held that it is not an assessment under Section 15(1), but an assessment under Section 5(4) of the Act on account of additional construction. Pursuant to the same, the Tahsildar again assessed the building to tax for a plinth area of 1931.35 sq.m. The petitioner again challenged the same. The RDO again remanded the matter by Ext.P7 order on the ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of w.p.c.15586/06 - : 2 :- being heard and remeasurement was not in the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same in Ext.P8 revision before the District Collector. The District Collector, as a condition for entertaining the revision petition, directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the building tax and to produce proof thereof. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “(i) call for the records leading to the passing of Exts.P3, P4, P5, P7 and P9 orders by the respondents and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction; (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to take back on file Ext.P8 revision petition and dispose of the same without insisting a deposit of 50% of the additional tax assessed by the third respondent; (iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 52,800/- extorted from the petitioner which she is not liable to pay; (iv) declare that the entire proceedings now initiated by the third respondent is barred by limitation and is liable to be set aside; (v) issue an ad-interim order of stay of recovery of building tax as borne out by Ext.P5 order passed by the third respondent.” 2. The petitioner now submits that the petitioner has already paid ` 50,000/- and, therefore, she should not be required to pay any further amount as a condition for considering her revision petition. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I do not think that I can direct the District Collector to consider the revision petition without the petitioner complying with the statutory condition for entertaining the revison. As per the statutory w.p.c.15586/06 - : 3 :- condition, the petitioner has to pay 50% of the tax assessed. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to direct the District Collector to consider Ext.P8 revision petition on the petitioner paying 50% of the tax demanded as per the statutory condition. Naturally, for arriving at 50%, the amount already paid by the petitioner shall also be taken into account. At the same time, I am of opinion that in view of the different measurements at different times, the District Collector should give a finality to the measurement by directing a competent engineer under his control to remeasure the building in the presence of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall pay the balance amount required to make up 50% of the tax for considering Ext.P8 revision petition, within a period of two weeks. On receipt of the same, the District Collector shall consider Ext.P8 revision petition on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Before passing orders, the District Collector shall get the plinth area of the building measured by a competent engineer under his control in the presence of the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.15586/06 - : 4 :-