IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20717 of 2004(N)
1. JOSEPH S/O. JOSEPH, VARICKAMAKKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. KURIAN S/O. JOSEPH, VARICKAMAKKAL HOUSE,
Vs
1. THE THAHZILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IDUKKI,
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.J.MICHAEL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/07/2008
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W.P.(C). No.20717/2004-N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order passed
by the revisional authority. The above order was passed in a statutory
revision filed by the petitioners challenging Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 is the
order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in an appeal filed by
them.
2. The petitioners are owners of different properties in Survey
No.287/4 of Muttam Village, viz. the first petitioner is the owner of 22
cents of land and the second petitioner is the owner of 40 cents of land.
The properties are lying side by side on the western side of the
Thodupuzha-Idukki road. They obtained the properties by virtue of
separate sale deed Nos. 1759/1978 and 3148/1978, the copies of which
are produced as Exts.P1 and P2 respectively. Thereafter, a shopping
complex was decided to be constructed in it. They executed an
agreement on 28/09/1988 incorporating relevant clauses for the
construction of the shopping complex. According to them, out of the
eight rooms in the ground floors, four rooms on the southern side were
to be constructed on the first petitioner’s plot and and the remaining
W.P.(C).NO.20717/2004-N
-:2:-
four rooms on the northern side were to be constructed in the property
of the second petitioner. The other details as regards the construction
are also detailed in the writ petition.
3. It is further asserted that the cost of construction was met
separately by the petitioners. But the first respondent assessed the
building under the Building Tax Act, as a single unit and this was
challenged in appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who
rejected the appeal as per Ext.P5 order.
4. In Ext.P6, what is recorded is that there are no grounds to
alter the order of the appellate authority. Thus, Ext.P6 order does not
reflect the application of mind by the revisional authority to the grounds
raised in the revision petition. Being a statutory authority, the
revisional authority was bound to consider the matter independent of
the findings recorded by the appellate authority. Otherwise the
revisional remedy will be a mere formality. The petitioners point out
that there are documents to show that the building cannot be assessed
as a single unit. There are other grounds also to challenge the validity
of Ext.P6.
5. In that view of the matter, I quash Ext.P6. The third
respondent-District Collector is directed to reconsider the revision
afresh with notice to the petitioners and affording them a reasonable
opportunity for hearing. The petitioners will be allowed to produce
W.P.(C).NO.20717/2004-N
-:3:-
additional materials, if any, before the revisional authority. The
revisional authority will pass final orders within six months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders as directed above
are passed, the interim order passed by this Court will continue to be in
force. No costs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
Judge
ms