IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1952 of 2008(G)
1. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, SMITHA NIVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM.
4. TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KILIKOLLOR,
6. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :14/12/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.1952/2008-G
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The matter arise from the Building Tax Act. The
petitioner filed a revision petition before the
District Collector against Ext.P6 order passed by the
third respondent in appeal. Initially, that revision
petition was rejected as per Ext.P8 order for non
remittance of additional court fee stamp worth 0.5% of
the amount involved in dispute. He did not remit the
50% of the building tax in terms of Section 13(4) of
the Kerala Building Tax Act. It is the case of the
petitioner that thereafter, payments have been made and
the petitioner produced evidence along with the Review
Petition. The District Collector rejected the Review
Petition as per Ext.P9 order stating that there is no
power for review in terms of the provisions of the Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The only question is whether the petitioner
has remitted the deposit of 50% even after filing the
W.P.(C). No.1952/2008
-:2:-
revision petition as well as 0.5% towards legal benefit
fund. If the petitioner has already produced evidence
to show the payment, as contended by him, the orders
Exts.P8 and P9 will stand quashed. If the petitioner
has not remitted the amounts so far, the said amounts
will be remitted within a period of one month and the
petitioner will accordingly produce evidence for the
remittance also. If the District Collector is
satisfied that the payments have been duly made in
terms of the above direction, then the Revision
Petition will be disposed of in accordance with law, on
merits. The petitioner will produce a copy of this
Judgment before the District Collector along with the
evidence within one month, for compliance. The writ
petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms