IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31644 of 2011(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JAMES GEORGE, MALIAKAL, NEENDOOR, KOTTAYAM THALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D.KARTHA SRI.V.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM-686001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM THALUK, KOTTAYAM-686001. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ONAMTHURUTH VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-686602. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD WPC NO. 31644/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 27-12-2002. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 22-01-2003. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 04-02-2003. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RDO KOTTAYAM DATED 17-3-2005. EXT.P5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE THAHASILDAR KOTTAYAM DATED 22-4-2005. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO. 8871/SCI/06/RD DATED 21-3-2006. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE RDO, KOTTAYAM DATED 18-3-2009 EXT.P8 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO, KOTTAYAM, DATED 10-7-2009. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 33772/2009 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 24-11-2009. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 02-02-2010. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO, KOTTAYAM DATED 02-08-2011. EXT.P12 COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, RDO, KOTTAYAM DATED 27-09-2011. EXT.P13 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11-10-2011. EXT.P14 COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DATED 27-09-2011. EXT.P15 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17-10-2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SD S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.31644 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a residential building. It has been assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The petitioner has been directed to pay building tax as well as luxury tax on the premise that the plinth area of the building is 292.11 sq. mtrs. The petitioner disputes the same. The petitioner therefore filed an appeal against the assessment order before the 2nd respondent taking the specific contention that the car porch which ought not to have been taken into account has been taken into account for calculating the plinth area. This Court by Ext.P9 judgment earlier directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal as directed in the judgment. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P11 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent, wherein it is specifically stated that since during the hearing, the petitioner raised a specific W.P.(C)No.31644 of 2011 -2- contention regarding the plinth area, the Tahsildar was directed to remeasure the building with notice to the petitioner, pursuant to which, the Tahsildahr has re- measured it and reported that the plinth area of the building is 292.11 sq. mtrs. The petitioner submits that, that statement in Ext.P11 order is incorrect. Therefore, he has initiated proceedings under the Right to Information Act by filing Ext.P12 and P14 applications before the Public Information Officer concerned. To the same, he has received Exts.P13 & P15 which would go to show that the statements in Ext.P11 order is incorrect. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P11 or passed by the 2nd respondent. (b) issue writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 3rd respondent to measure the petitioner's building excluding the garage/car porch and to pass a fresh order of assessment and also directing the refund of the luxury tax remitted by the petitioner.” In view of Exts.P13 & P15, which would show that the statements in the impugned order are incorrect, I directed W.P.(C)No.31644 of 2011 -3- the learned Government Pleader to get instructions from the 2nd respondent as to the correctness of the statements in Ext.P11. Today the learned Government Pleader submits that some inadvertent mistake has crept into Ext.P11 order. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent is ready to reconsider the appeal in accordance with law after making a re-measurement with notice to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, Ext.P11 order is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the appeal after getting the plinth area of the building remeasured in the presence of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/