IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 36563 of 2007 (C) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SRI.N.MARAKAR, AGED 69, S/O.BEERANKUTTY, NELLISSERY HOUSE, TRITHALA, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DIST. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DIST. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 36563 OF 2007 C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The matter arises under the Kerala Building Tax Act. Ext. P1 is an order passed by the 1st respondent levying building tax on the petitioner and that is confirmed in appeal by the 2nd respondent as per Ext. P2 order. A revision was filed by the 3rd respondent. On the directions of the revisional authority the area was measured and Exts. P3 and P4 show that the total plinth area is 280.742 sq.m. Accepting the measurement as above, the revision was also rejected by Ext. P5 dated 18.2.2006. 2. What is now contended by the petitioner is that even if the area as found in Exts. P3 and P4 is accepted, the building is liable to be exempted from the provisions of the Act. This contention is raised on the ground that in terms of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Subashchandra Babu v. State of Kerala {2006 (2) KLT 189}, the area occupied by the garage is liable to be WPC No. 36563/07 -2- excluded and if that benefit is granted, 15.2 sq. m. is liable to be reduced. The net result is that the total plinth area will be less than 278.78 sq. m., petitioner submits. 3. A reading of Exts. P3 and P4 shows that the area occupied by the garage is not excluded while determining the plinth area of the building. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision that area is liable to be excluded. Therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered. 4. Accordingly, quashing Ext. P5 I direct that the 3rd respondent shall reconsider the matter in the light of the law laid down in the decision referred to above and with notice to the petitioner. This the 3rd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-