IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11561 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- R.SADANANDHAN,AGED 78 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHARYAR,BHUMBAKODI MADATHIL, C.C. NO.44/1610, "RAGHU VIHAR",ASHOKA ROAD,ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.NELSON J.MANAYIL SRI.K.A.SHAJI MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI-682001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682011. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORG E VADEKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 11561/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.B1-10397/2004 DATED 12/10/2004 ISSUED TO THYE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.G-6139/04/K. DIS. DATED 18/03/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11561 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against assessment of Building Tax completed under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. It is noticed that the assessment was completed during the year 2004. Contention of the petitioner is that the building in question was completed construction during the year 1967 and the provisions of the Building Tax Act is not applicable to such building which was constructed before 1.4.1973. Aggrieved by the assessment, the petitioner had invoked statutory remedy of appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appeal in question was filed on 12.11.2004. It is evident from Ext.P2 order of the appellate authority that, a hearing of the appeal was conducted as early as on 1.12.2004. But after the lapse of more than 6 years, the appeal was dismissed holding that the appellant had failed to produce relevant documents like 'age certificate' issued by local bodies to substantiate his claim. 2 W.P.(C).No.11561 of 2011 2. Ext.P2 order is assailed mainly on the ground that the dismissal of the appeal was after the lapse of 6 years from the date of hearing and that, the incumbent in the office of the 2nd respondent who heard the petitioner on 1.12.2004, is not the authority who passed Ext.P2. In other words, it is contented that the officer who had issued Ext.P2 order has not conducted any personal hearing. It is further pointed out that the petitioner had produced the assessment list obtained from the local authority, Kochi Corporation, in order to prove that the building in question was constructed prior to 1973. The above fact is admitted in Ext.P2 order. But at the same time, it is observed that the petitioner had failed to produce any relevant document like 'age certificate'. 3. On an appraisal of Ext.P2 order, I am of the strong opinion that, the appeal in question was disposed of in a casual manner without considering the contentions raised in its real perspective. According to the petitioner, there is no procedure available to get a certificate from the local 3 W.P.(C).No.11561 of 2011 authority, which is termed as 'age certificate'. On the other hand, it is contended that the documents already produced will indicate that the building in question was assessed by the local authority for imposing Property Tax, prior to the year 1973 itself. Even though the 2nd respondent observed that the report of the Tahasildar is to the effect that the year of completion of the building is 1992, there is no finding seen arrived on the basis of confrontation made by the petitioner through the documents produced. It is pertinent to note that the respondents have no case that the petitioner had effected any renovation or addition or reconstruction of the building during the year 1992. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 2nd respondent. 4. Therefore, the writ petitions is allowed and Ext.P2 order is hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to take up the appeal on his files and to dispose of the same afresh, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that, the appellate authority 4 W.P.(C).No.11561 of 2011 should consider the contentions raised on the basis of the supporting documents produced. It is left open to the 2nd respondent to make verification in the records available with the local authority, in order to ascertain as to whether any renovation, addition or reconstruction was effected after 1973. 5. A fresh decision in this regard shall be taken by the 2nd respondent, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Needless to say that, amount of tax if any paid by the petitioner shall be appropriated in accordance with the outcome of the fresh decision to be taken by the 2nd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/