IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 1952 of 2008(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, SMITHA NIVAS, PRATHEEKSHA NAGAR - 41, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KILIKOLLOR, KOLLAM. 6. THE SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT O THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.1952/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 10.10.2002. P2:- COPY OF THE RETURN. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19.3.05. P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 19.3.05. P5:- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26.12.2006. P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 28.2.07. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3.8.07. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27.11.2007. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.1952/2008-G ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The matter arise from the Building Tax Act. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the District Collector against Ext.P6 order passed by the third respondent in appeal. Initially, that revision petition was rejected as per Ext.P8 order for non remittance of additional court fee stamp worth 0.5% of the amount involved in dispute. He did not remit the 50% of the building tax in terms of Section 13(4) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, payments have been made and the petitioner produced evidence along with the Review Petition. The District Collector rejected the Review Petition as per Ext.P9 order stating that there is no power for review in terms of the provisions of the Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The only question is whether the petitioner has remitted the deposit of 50% even after filing the W.P.(C). No.1952/2008 -:2:- revision petition as well as 0.5% towards legal benefit fund. If the petitioner has already produced evidence to show the payment, as contended by him, the orders Exts.P8 and P9 will stand quashed. If the petitioner has not remitted the amounts so far, the said amounts will be remitted within a period of one month and the petitioner will accordingly produce evidence for the remittance also. If the District Collector is satisfied that the payments have been duly made in terms of the above direction, then the Revision Petition will be disposed of in accordance with law, on merits. The petitioner will produce a copy of this Judgment before the District Collector along with the evidence within one month, for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms