IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 576 of 2009()
1. KARUVATTIL YASIR, AGED 48 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA,
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKANGARA
For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :31/07/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.GIRI, JJ.
-----------------------------
R.P.No.576 OF 2009
-----------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009
O R D E R
~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
Going by the ground taken and the arguments addressed,
we are of the view that the review petitioner is trying for re-
hearing of the Writ Petition itself. Whether the building was
completely reconstructed or only an additional construction was
made after the date of the notification of the provision
concerning luxury tax was the dispute considered and decided by
the learned Single Judge. The decision went against the review
petitioner. It was found that the entire building was
reconstructed. The learned Single Judge also provided that if
the construction is below the stipulated plinth area, that is,
278.70 m2, he can convince the Tahsildar about that and escape
from the liability of paying luxury tax. But, the learned counsel
for the review petitioner is canvassing again for the position that
there was only an additional construction and therefore, luxury
R.P.No.576/2009 2
tax cannot be imposed for the said additional construction, which
has a plinth area below 278.70 m2.
Having regard to the limited scope of review, we feel that
the above contention cannot be examined in this Review Petition.
Accordingly, it is dismissed.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ps