IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 16145 of 2010(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THOMAS PHILP, AGED 54, S/O. K.M. THOMAS, KARIPALLYMANNIL HOUSE, KOZHINCHERY. P.O., KOZHENCHERY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE P/A HOLDER C.A.THOMAS, AGED 52, S/O. C.V.ALEXANDER, IPC PENIEL, KOZHENCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON, SMT.LOVELY SAMSON. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA.P.O. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOZHENCHERY, CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.P.O., 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHENCHERY. P.O. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 16145 of 2010(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/11/2002 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23/11/2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION DATED 27/03/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 05/05/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE RECEIPT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 16145 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 22nd day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the original, appellate and revisional orders under the Kerala Building Tax Act, whereby the petitioner has been assessed to building tax in respect of a building constructed by him. According to him, a cellar portion, which only supports the building above, has also been assessed to tax on the basis of a letter from the Government and the District Collector has not independently considered whether the said portion is exigible to tax. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. From Ext.P3 order of the District Collector in revision, I find that the District Collector has relied on a letter from the Government to the effect that unused pillar portion is part of cellar portion and therefore exigible to tax. I am of opinion that that question should have been independently considered by the District Collector instead of relying on a letter from the Government. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order is quashed. The District Collector is directed to re-consider the revision. While doing so, the District Collector shall independently consider the question raised by the petitioner as to whether the pillar portion is exigible to tax. The District Collector shall also consider the W.P(C) No. 16145 of 2010 -: 2 :- question as to whether the decision of this Court in Subhashchandrababu v. State of Kerala, 2006(2) KLT 189 is applicable to the facts of the case. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/