IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21906 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RUKSANA VALIYAKATH, D/O.ABOOTY, AGED 38 YEARS, ALWASEEL(HO), CHIRAKARA POST, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SHANOJ, SRI.FUAD. C.O.T. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR THALASSERY, THALASSERY P.O, PIN-670 101. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR- 670 101. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY- 670 101. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 21906 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/08/2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY WITH TYPED COPY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2010/44247/G1/13 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DATED 06/2011. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MUNICIPALITY APPROVED COMPLETION PLAN. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE MEASUREMENT ASSESSED BY THE PRIVATE ENGINEER, THALASSERY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.21906 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the original, appellate and revisional orders under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, in respect of assessment of building tax on a building owned by the petitioner. The petitioner's dispute is only regarding the plinth area. According to the petitioner, the plinth area has been calculated by the authorities taking into account the car porch which is liable to be excluded from measurement for the purpose of fixation of plinth area. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority got the building remeasured by the same officer who measured it earlier and therefore the matter should be reconsidered after getting the area measured by another officer. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. From Ext.P1 order, I find that, the appellate W.P.(C)No.21906 of 2011 -2- authority did not accept the measurement by the assessing authority, but considered the matter afresh with the help of the building plan approved by the local authority and got the area remeasured and found that the total plinth area is 281.505 M2. In Ext.P1, the appellate authority has held thus: “The appellant was called for hearing on 7.9.09. Sri. Thasleem brother of the appellant attended the hearing and stated that the carporch area and vacant portion in the First floor of the building have been included in the assessment made by the Tahsildar. The petitioner is directed to submit the completion plan of the building. On 5.10.2010, the brother of the appellant attended the hearing and submitted the completion plan of the building which shows the plinth area of the building as 291.49 M2. The plinth area of car porch and vacant portion of chimaney in the First Floor of the building has been included in the above said completion plan. Subsequently the Tahsildar is directed to verify the building. The Tahsildar in his letter C5- 32100/08. dt.3.6.10 has reported that the plinth area of car porch has not been taken into account for the assessment. The Tahsildar has also reported that after deducting the area of vacant portion in the First Floor of the building, the total plinth area of the building comes as 281.505 M2” 4. The petitioner does not allege any malafides against either the assessing authority or the appellate authority in the matter. Without any allegations of malafides, I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the measurement done twice, one at the instance of the W.P.(C)No.21906 of 2011 -3- assessing authority and the other at the instance of the appellate authority. I do not think that, I can in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India decide the disputed question of fact, especially when the petitioner has not produced any reliable materials to suspect the validity of the measurement done by two authorities. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/