IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5433 of 2010(D)
1. MUHAMMADALI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :23/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 5433 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 23rd February , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The issue involved in this case is whether the assessment
finalized by the third respondent and confirmed by the second
respondent, treating the entire building consisting of the
‘residential portion’ as well as the ‘commercial portion’ as ‘other
building’ imposing a higher rate of tax, is correct or sustainable
and whether the building should have been separately assessed
in respect of the different portions as aforesaid, by virtue of law
declared by this Court on the point.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance
on the dictum in Sukumaran vs. Tahsildar (1999 (2) KLT
373) and Jameela vs. Tahsildar (2003 (3) KLT 979)
submits that the proceedings pursued and finalized against the
petitioner are per se wrong and illegal.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who
W.P.(C) No. 5433 OF 2010
2
submits after verification of the facts and figures and also the
binding judicial precedents that, there is considerable force in
the above submission.
4. Accordingly, the impugned orders Exts.P1 and P4 are
hereby set aside. The third respondent is directed to re-consider
the matter with regard to different extents of plinth area,
forming the ‘residential portion’ and ‘commercial portion’,
separately and to finalise the assessment in accordance with law,
of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On finalization of
the proceedings as above, if it is found that any excess payment
has already been effected by the petitioner, the same shall be
returned to the petitioner within one month thereafter.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk