IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1221 of 2010(C)
1. N.S.SIDHARDHAN, J.J.BHAVAN, UZHUVA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA.
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :19/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 1221 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 19th January , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext. P1 assessment order
passed by the first respondent under the relevant provisions of
the Kerala Building Tax Act fixing the plinth area, casting huge
liability upon the petitioner, assessing the residential building of
the petitioner, wrongly reckoning the area of the ‘terrace
portion’ of the building having a roof, but without any enclosure,
which is not liable to be reckoned as ‘plinth area’ under Section 2
(k) of the Act for fixation of the liability.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
first installment of Rs.1350/- as scheduled in Ext.P1 order was
satisfied by the petitioner as borne by Ext.P2 receipt. The
petitioner filed Ext. P3 application for rectification of the mistake
before the first respondent himself, as provided under Section 15
of the Kerala Building Tax Act. However, the first respondent
W.P.(C) No. 1221 OF 2010
2
after considering Ext. P3 application rejected the same as per
Ext.P4 holding that the remedy of the petitioner, if aggrieved in
any manner, was only by filing appeal as provided under the
Statute . The petitioner is now before this Court stating that the
issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in
Padmanabhan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2009(1) KLT
295).
2,. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who
sought to sustain Ext.P4 order passed by the first respondent.
3. The only question to be considered in the Writ Petition
is whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory
authority by filing the appeal when the legal position stands
settled in view of the dictum laid down by the decision cited
supra. As per the said verdict, the terrace portion, though
covered by a roof to protect the building from sun and rains, is
not liable to be included as part of the plinth area under Section
2(k) of the statute and for the purpose of assessment under
Sections 5 and 5A of the Act. This being the position, the
matter is liable to be reconsidered by the assessing authority in
W.P.(C) No. 1221 OF 2010
3
the light of the decision cited supra.
In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order
Ext. P1 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to re-
consider the matter, in the light of the law declared by this
Court in Padmanabhan vs. State of Kerala [2009(1) KLT
295], after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
which course shall be pursued and finalised, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk