High Court Kerala High Court

Balan P.Nair vs The Tahsildar on 31 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Balan P.Nair vs The Tahsildar on 31 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 38760 of 2010(T)


1. BALAN P.NAIR, PROPRIETOR, KVR CARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG,
                       ...       Respondent

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :31/12/2010

 O R D E R
                K.SURENDRAMOHAN, J.
               ----------------------------------------------
                  WP (C) No. 38760 of 2010
               ----------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 31st day of December, 2010

                        J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the owner of a building which is

assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building Tax

Act, 1978. According to the petitioner the tax assessed is

exorbitant. He is also entitled to exemption in respect of

substantial portions of the building. Therefore the

petitioner has challenged Ext.P2 assessment order before

the appellate authority under the Act. The said appeal,

Ext.P3, is submitted before the 2nd respondent. Along

with Ext.P3, the petitioner has also submitted Exts.P4 and

P5 applications for stay of recovery of the tax that has

been assessed.

2. According to the petitioner he has paid the first

instalment of the tax assessed. Therefore, he is entitled to

a stay of recovery of the balance amount of tax, pending

final disposal of Ext.P3 appeal. Though Exts.P4 and P5

stay petitions have been filed he complains that no orders

WP (C) No. 38760 of 2010 2

have been passed thereon till date. In the meantime he

apprehends that the tax assessed would be recovered

from him by initiating coercive action. Therefore he has

filed this writ petition, seeking necessary reliefs.

3. Since Exts. P4 and P5 applications for stay are

pending before the 2nd respondent, I do not think it

necessary to consider the contentions of the petitioner on

the merits. It is sufficient that Exts. P4 and P5 are

directed to be disposed of expeditiously.

4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is

disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.

P4 and P5 applications for stay and to pass appropriate

orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously

as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement.

K.SURENDRAMOHAN,
JUDGE.

rkc