IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26324 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MOHAMMED HAJI, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE SEEMAN HAJI, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, PATTITHARA, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPPALAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTITHARA. 5. THE SECRETARY, PATTITHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI K.B.PRADEEP FOR R1 TO R4 ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.26324/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.8.2004. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.7.06. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.7.08. TRUE COPY T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.26324 Of 2008 H ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT The challenge raised by the petitioner is against the order imposing luxury tax at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensem as per Exhibit P1. The same has been confirmed in appeal as per Exhibit P2 and in revision by Exhibit P4 by the District Collector. 2. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the contentions raised by the petitioner have not been considered by the various statutory authorities. It is pointed out that the construction was, prior to 1.1.1999, in the year 1997 and therefore luxury tax cannot be assessed to the building. It is also pointed out that the area is below 278.7 Sq.metres and the car porch, fire log shed and work area etc. were included. Form No.2 was not signed by the petitioner. 3. A reading of Exhibit P1 shows that the plinth area has been assessed as 330.21 Sq.metres. In the appeal, Exhibit P2, evidently the petitioner relied upon a certificate from the Secretary of the Panchayat stating that the building was constructed in the year 1997. Appellate Authority found that in W.P.(C)No. 26324/08 -2- Form No.2, the completion date is recorded as during the year 2001. Therefore, the appeal was rejected. The District Collector in Exhibit P4 also considered the very same contention. It was found that Form No.2 was signed by brother of the petitioner, as the petitioner was not available, which aspect has been accepted by the petitioner also in the revision petition and accordingly the said contention was rejected. With regard to the contention that the building was constructed in 1997, it was found by the District Collector that no evidence was adduced by the petitioner and therefore the said contention was also rejected. 4. The 5th respondent-Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit. It is mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit that Building No.VIII/439 of Pattithara Grama Pancayat belonged to one Kavumkal Mohammed and the said building was a small house with tiled roof. The Panchayat was levying Rs.28/- as tax for the said hut. The said Kavumkal Mohammed and the petitioner, namely, Mohammed Haji is one and the same person. A new two storeyed building was constructed near to Door No.VIII/439 and the Panchayat has not assessed any tax to the said building so far. The certificate issued by the Secretary of W.P.(C)No. 26324/08 -3- the Panchayat in the year 2004 was in respect of the old building and it is averred that the petitioner has cheated the authorities concerned by creating the impression that the newly constructed building and the old building are one and the same building. 5. It is, therefore, evident from the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent that there are two buildings and the certificate relied upon by the petitioner is in respect of the old building. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the certificate issued by the Panchayat cannot help the case of the petitioner. Evidently, Form No.2 was rightly considered by the authorities concerned, which shows that the construction was done in the year 2001. If that be so, the petitioner is liable to pay luxury tax, especially since there is no contra evidence. 6. What remains is the contention of the petitioner that the plinth area is below 278.7 Sq.Metres. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that no such contention was raised by the petitioner in the appeal or revision and the area was not disputed by the petitioner before the statutory authorities. If that be so, the petitioner cannot raise W.P.(C)No. 26324/08 -4- such a contention in the Writ Petition. For all these reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities concerned. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Payments, if any, made during the pendency of the Writ Petition will be adjusted towards the total amount payable by the petitioner. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn