IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 9775 OF 2001(L) ---------------------- PETITIONER: M/S. TAJ GARDEN RETREAT HOTEL, THEKKADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY- MR. SREEDHAR REDDY. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D.NAIR RESPONDENTS : 1. TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE. 2. DISTRICIT COLLECTOR, IDUKKY. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. TCR CHAND THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 9775/2001 ORDER ON CMP NO. 15661/2001 IN O.P. 9775/2001 // DISMISSED// 17.3.2008. SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17.7.1999. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 3.1.2001. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.3.2001. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN, J. = = = = = = = = O.P. NO. 9775 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 17DAY OF MARCH, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a joint sector company formed by the Taj Group and Tourist Resorts (Kerala) Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Government of Kerala. They have been assessed to building tax to one time payment as per the Kerala Building Tax Act, as per Ext. P1 produced in the case. Ext.P1 was challenged by them before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki - the first appellate authority. The order passed by that authority dismissing the appeal is produced as Ext.P2. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, petitioner preferred a revision before the District Collector who is the revisional authority; but without success. The order of the Revisional Authority is produced as Ext.P3. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P3, petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The ground urged in the original petition is that Ext.P3 is an order confirming Ext.P1 assessment order which is illegal, arbitrary and unauthorised. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 was completed without issuing notice to the petitioner. According to him, there was no proper service of the impugned order. The second ground urged is that a single O.P. 9775/2001 :2: assessment for 18 buildings is not authorised by law since the buildings are spread over on a total area of three acres. 3. There is no dispute that if all the 18 buildings are liable to be assessed conjointly, taking the area in question the total area as assessable is correct. But whether these 18 buildings could be assessed together for the purpose of determining the total area is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this court in Lalitha v. State of Kerala ( 1994(2) KLT 66). The same view has been reiterated by this Court in the decision in Greenberg Holiday Resort (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Tahsildar Thodupuzha & Another (O.P. 32291/2000) rendered on 24.1.2005. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention regarding the assessment of 18 buildings jointly for calculating the total area. 4. The next contention is that no order is served on the petitioner. This is contrary to the pleadings in the original petition. The petitioner himself has stated that Ext.P1 is the assessment order. It may not be served on him but when he produced Ext.P1, thereafter he cannot contend that for want of service of that order he is prejudicially affected. It is after Ext.P1 was obtained by the petitioner that he has preferred an appeal and thereafter a revision. Both these were considered on merits and as such no O.P. 9775/2001 :3: prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Service of notice or order is contemplated by law so that one can work out his remedies available to him under law. In this case, when petitioner has admittedly obtained Ext.P1, it is not open to him to say that it is not served on him. I have also gone through the rules in this regard. The assessment both under Form No. V and VI are materially the same, without any difference. 5. If that be so, all the requirement of passing an assessment order is contained in Ext.P1 produced by the petitioner. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to exercise the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant any relief to the petitioner. The original petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) knc/- O.P. 9775/2001 :4: P.R. RAMAN, J. = = = = = = = = = O.P. NO. 9775 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T ============== DATED: 17TH MARCH, 2008.