IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 29685 of 2005(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------- REGHUNATHAN NAIR, S/O.DAMODRAN PILLAI VALIAPLAVUNKAL VEEDU, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUKUMARA PILLAI SRI.DILIP MOHAN SRI.C.P.SAJI RESPONDENT(S): 1 ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.18.11.99. P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED DEMAND NOTICE DT.22.3.2002. P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTTED BY PETITIONER TO R2 DT.5.4.2002. P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO.12499/2002(K). P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A. 2219/2002 DT.10.11.2004. P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED NOTICE DT.1.4.2005. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.29685 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The W.P. is filed challenging Ext.P6 proceedings which is revised building tax assessment issued in respect of petitioner's building on the ground that revised assessment was made without issuing notice to him. However, Government Pleader after taking instruction from the Tahsildar reported that notice was issued on 26.3.2005 and party appeared for hearing on 29.3.2005. Therefore, the allegation that notice was not issued appears to be incorrect. However, I feel when the matter was remanded by this court for fresh consideration, it was not proper on the part of the Tahsildar to have issued the order in a form prescribed by the statute. Whatever is the objection petitioner has raised, particularly if it is against plinth area assessed, the Tahsildar should have considered the matter objectively and issued an order supported by reasons after considering petitioner's objections. Since this is not done, W.P. is disposed of directing the Tahsildar to issue a supplementary order to Ext.P6 giving reasons for his findings against the objections raised by the petitioner for him to contest it in appeal, if he has any continuing grievance. If petitioner wants to contest 2 the matter further, the petitioner should produce copy of this judgment before the Tahsildar for him to issue an order as stated above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms