U. Murugadas v. Tahsildar, Chittur, Palakkad District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad; District Collector, Palakkad

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/1ST CHAITHRA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 34433 of 2007 (Y)** **---------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **-----------------** **U.MURUGADAS, S/O. K.S.UNNIKRISHNAN, K.K.N.JEWELLERY, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN** **RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------** **1. THE TAHSILDAR,** - **CHITTUR, PIN-678 102, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD.** **3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ROSE MICHAEL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MJL** ## **WPC.NO:34433/07** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.NO.7744/92 AND O.P.7512/92 DATED 29/03/1994 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR VIDE ORDER NO.A4-19911/03 DATED 12/01/2006 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C-776/2006 DATED 23/09/2006 PASSED BY THE RDO, PALAKKAD EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DATED 18/11/2006 AGAINST EXT.P3 ORDER. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD IN B1-2006/499923/9 DATED 18/10/2007 EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.3979876 DATED 16/02/2006 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P A T0 JUDGE** **MJL** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## W.P.C. NO.34433 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21[st] day of March, 2012 ## JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the assessment of a building, by name “Vasantha Complex” by Ext.P3 order. According to the petitioner, the building was assessed earlier by order No.D.Dis.9563/90 dated 10.1.1996 and that based on the subsequent additional construction being made, the building was sought to be assessed afresh. On a reading of Ext.P2 order, which is the assessment made by the 1[st] respondent, it is clear that the additional plinth area was taken in to account and the building was assessed afresh for the entire plinth area and the amounts paid as per the earlier assessment was given set off. The demand made was for the balance amount of Rs.98,400/-. The contention of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority as also the revisional authority was regarding the clubbing together of the plinth area already assessed along with the plinth area of additional construction, which, it is submitted, is illegal 2 W.P.C. NO.34433 OF 2007 and improper. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges the said contention before me on the strength of a decision ## reported in **Adbul Rasheed vs Tahsildar [2005(2)KLT 819].** 2. The said decision related to the assessment of a building in which 2 floors were assessed on the basis of capital value of the building as per the unamended provisions of the Building Tax Act. On subsequent construction of three more floors, the assessing authority took into account the entire plinth area and after applying the tax on the basis of the plinth area, as was amended in 1992, set off was granted for the amounts remitted earlier. In such circumstances, this Court held that when constructions have been made before the appointed date and the tax has been assessed on the basis of a different criteria, the reconstruction or additional construction does not lead to application of Section 5(4). 3. I am afraid, the said decision will not apply to the facts of the instant case since the dictum laid down was 3 W.P.C. NO.34433 OF 2007 with reference to a building in which the initial construction was done prior to the appointed date. In the instant case, admittedly the earlier assessment was also after the appointed date and the initial assessment and the subsequent assessment on the basis of additional construction are all based on the plinth area of the building. In such circumstances, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if the building is assessed afresh and deduction granted to the earlier assessment made. 4. However, the counsel for the petitioner points out that Ext.P1 judgment was also with respect to the very same building and that in the said case, the assessments made jointly of two buildings were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration. However, the said contention is belied by the fact that Ext.P2 order speaks of the earlier assessment for Rs.78,000/- being made as per the Kerala Building Tax (Plinth Area Rules 1992). There is nothing on record to show that Ext.P1 judgment is with respect to the 4 W.P.C. NO.34433 OF 2007 same building which has been assessed by Ext.P2. In such circumstances, there is no scope for interference in the order of assessment made as per Ext.P2, as confirmed in appeal and revision. The appellate order as well as the revisional order (Ext.P3 and P5) shows that the matter has been remanded for measurement by the 1[st] respondent and completion of the assessment on the basis of the said measurement. If the said remand order has not been complied with, the 1[st] respondent shall complete the same with notice to the assessee and with measurement done as per the remand order within the period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** **stu** W.P.C. NO.34433 OF 2007 5 W.P.C. NO.34433 OF 2007 6