M/S.Maratt Limited vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 381 of 2009()


1. M/S.MARATT LIMITED,(FORMERLY MARATT
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, ASSESSING AUTHORITY

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :18/02/2009

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                         K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
               ....................................................................
                         Writ Appeal No.381 of 2009
               ....................................................................
               Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Writ Appeal is filed judgment of the learned Single Judge

upholding the plantation tax assessments of the appellant confirmed in

appeals for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1988-89. We have heard

Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Special Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. The first grievance of the appellant is that average 130 rubber

trees are taken as planted in every acre of land based on data available

with the Rubber Board. The claim was rejected by the learned Single

Judge holding that Rubber Board is the main agency guiding and

promoting rubber cultivation in the country with even financial

assistance given to planters. We do not find any ground to interfere

with this because it is common knowledge that planters plant only more

number of trees than what is permitted by the Rubber Board. In fact,

130 could be the minimum number of plants that can be planted in an

2

acre of land. Therefore, this does not call for any modification. The

second contention raised by the appellant is that the area sold in several

years is not reduced while making the assessment. The learned Single

Judge considered all the assessments and found that there is systematic

reduction in number of trees taken for assessment of planted area.

Therefore, the learned Single Judge has assumed that the sold areas

have been excluded in the assessments. However, we do not think this

finding is correct because by the year 1988-89 the appellant sold

around 750 acres which is more than 50% of the total extent of 1125.92

acres held by them in the beginning of 1981-82. We feel, if there are

mistakes in the assessment with regard to actual extent held by the

appellant, the same requires modification. However, we notice that

for the year 1982-83 appellant has no claim that they have sold portion

of the estate. For the year 1983-84, the extent of land sold is only 17

acres which is not going to affect the determination of liability for

above 1000 acres. We, therefore, do not think that there is any

justification to modify assessments for 1982-83 and 1983-84.

However, from the assessment year 1984-85 onwards, much extent of

3

land is seen sold by the appellant. The reduction in the planted area

granted in assessments does not appear to be directly corresponding to

the actual extent sold. In the circumstances, we dispose of the appeal

directing the Assessing Officer to verify the title deeds for the estate

sold from financial year 1983-84 onwards and revise the assessments

from financial year 1984-85 to 1988-89 within three months from date

of production of copy of this judgment along with copies of transfer

deeds by the appellant.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
pms