IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9547 of 2011(P) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- CHACKO KURIAMMA, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 57 YEARS, BATHEL SRAMBICKAL HOUSE, HOUSE NO. XI/207,MITHRAKIRI, MUTTAL VILLAGE, MUTTAL PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA 689 598. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 2. MUTTAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUTTAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 001. 3. THE SECRETARY, MUTTAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTTAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, MUTTAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTTAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 001. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 9547 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed challenging Exts. P6 and P10 and seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to make fresh proper assessment of the building owned by the petitioner by taking into consideration of assessment of other similar and similarly situated buildings as directed in Ext.P5 order. The further prayer is for a direction to the 3rd respondent to refund the excess Building Tax collected from the petitioner for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 forthwith. Ext.P6 is the copy of a report submitted by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent. It is based on Ext.P6 report that the 4th respondent assessed tax at the rate of Rs.9,720/- per year under Section 203(1) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 2. Essentially, the contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P10 was passed without application of mind. That apart, it is contended that the 3rd respondent had not taken into account the assessment of similar and similarly situated buildings as directed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government institutions as per Ext.P5 and, therefore, according to the petitioner it is liable to be interfered W.P.(C) No. 9547 of 2011 -2- with. A scanning of the contentions raised in this writ petition would reveal that no legal contentions are raised to challenge Exts.P6 and P10. As already noticed, the contention of the petitioner is that, while making such assessment pursuant to Ext.P5 assessment of similar and similarly situated buildings were not taken into consideration despite the direction in that regard by the Tribunal. It is for the petitioner to point out that the specific illegality while challenging the order of assessment. The contentions that in respect of any similar or similarly situated buildings, assessments were made in a different manner and that assessment in respect of the building in question was made without taking into account the assessment in respect of similar and similarly situated building, cannot taken as a ground to interfere with the impugned orders especially, in view of the assertion in Ext.P10 that no similar or similarly situated buildings are available for effecting the assessment in respect of the building in question. 3. I am of the opinion that in view of the said assertion in Ext.P10, no similar or similarly situated buildings are available for effecting the assessment, it cannot be held that the assessment was made ignoring the directions in Ext.P5. Such a factual finding in W.P.(C) No. 9547 of 2011 -3- Ext.P10 cannot be interfered with merely on the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P8 is an order of assessment in respect of a similarly situated building. No ground has been made out by the petitioner warranting interference with the impugned orders. Ext.P10 is an order passed as early as on 26.4.2010 and evidently, the petitioner has not cared to challenge the same for about an year. When that be the finding of fact, this Court cannot interfere with such finding. For all these reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. There is no merit in this writ petition and, accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE KRK W.P.(C) No. 9547 of 2011 -4-