IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 14 of 2009() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30129/2005 Dated 17/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC ------------------------------- KARUVATTIL YASIR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER MOULAVI, KARUVATTIL HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECREARY,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VADAKKANGARA VILLAGE PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQUE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.A.No.14 of 2009 ------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT KOSHY, Ag.C.J. The writ petition was filed by the appellant/petitioner on the ground that there was no new construction and hence no building tax or luxury tax is payable in respect of the residential building. According to the petitioner, he has only repaired an old building. The Tahsildar, after inspection, reported that it is a newly constructed building. The above view was accepted by the Assessing Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority. Learned single Judge refused to interfere with the above findings based on facts. 2. We are of the view that the above findings based on facts cannot be interfered with in a writ petition. We agree with the learned single Judge. But, according to the appellant, the area is only below 278.70 sq.m. The learned Judge directed the appellant/petitioner to produce a sketch showing the car porch and also directed the Tahsildar to W.A.NO.14/09 :: 2 :: recheck the matter with respect to the plinth area. The learned Judge also granted a stay against the Luxury Tax for two months from the date of judgment, so that the authorities can re-estimate the luxury tax. The petitioner was directed to pay the luxury tax based on the revised report of the Tahsildar without any delay. We are of the view that on the basis of the revised report, if there is any reduction of building tax, that also should be allowed by the authorities, apart from Luxury Tax. But the petitioner shall remit the building tax demanded within one month from today. We are not interfering with the direction as regards the liability to pay luxury tax. With that modification, this writ appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge