IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 5643 of 2005(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VENUGOPAL, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, SARADA MANDIRAM, ANDIPADAM, ARAKURUSSI AMSOM, MANNARKKAD I VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN SRI.N.SATHEESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, MANNARGHAT. 2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPPALAM. 3. THE HON'BLE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MATHEW VADAKKEL,R1TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) 5643 OF 2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS : EXHIBIT P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID NOTICE NO.B4 5241/03 DATED 26/7/2003 ISSUED 1st RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTEICE DATED 26/7/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/7/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/6/2004 PASSED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/8/2004 PASSED BY THE 3rd RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE P.W.D ENGINEER ALONG WITH PLAN. /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE C.M.S P.R.RAMAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5643 OF 2005 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Exts.P1 and P3 are under challenge. Petitioner constructed a residential building in 2003. Exts.P1 and P3 assessment orders were passed demanding building tax and luxury tax both dated 26.7.2003. The dispute however confines to the luxury tax alone. An amount of Rs.2,000/- was levied by way of luxury tax on the premise that the plinth area of the building is more than 278.7m2. It is contended that plinth area of the building is 257.7m2 and hence below the minimum plinth area required for levying luxury tax under the Act. Appeal and second appeal preferred against the assessment orders were however not successful. Hence this writ petition. At the time of admitting this writ petition, this Court by order dated 22.2.2005 directed remeasurement of the areas of the building through the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD in the presence of the petitioner as well as the authorised representative of the 1st respondent and to file a report to this Court. Accordingly, remeasurement was filed and a report has been filed which W.P.(C)No.5643/2005 2 shows that the area on remeasurement was found to be 295.92m2 (the ground floor and the 1st floor of the building measured as 160.39m2 and 135.53m2 respectively). Since the only dispute now raised is regarding the actual area and since this has been resolved by remeasurement of the area by the PWD Engineer by an order passed by this Court and in the absence of any successful challenge to the said report by the petitioner, the said report has to be accepted in which case the contention of the petitioner that the area in question is less than 278.7 m2 and therefore, no luxury tax can be levied is only be rejected without any merit. I do so. In the result, the original petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. (P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE) ps