High Court Kerala High Court

Thottoli Muhammedkutty vs The Tahasildar on 13 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Thottoli Muhammedkutty vs The Tahasildar on 13 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23174 of 2004(H)


1. THOTTOLI MUHAMMEDKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE TAHASILDAR, THIROORANGADI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :13/07/2007

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                    W.P(C).No.23174 OF 2004
                  -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 13th day of July, 2007


                              JUDGMENT

Read the orders dated 5.8.2004, 19.8.2004 and 15.10.2004.

Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the report of the Assistant

Executive Engineer is placed on record. By that report dated

27.10.2004, it is stated that the petitioner is liable to pay luxury

tax on the basis of the plinth area determined on measurement,

in terms of the aforesaid interlocutory orders of this Court.

Annexure A-1 shows a total plinth area of 300.34 m2, which is

much above the bench mark of 278.7 m2 for the purpose of levy

of luxury tax in terms of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner attempts to point out

that what is shown as the ‘veranda’ in Annexure A-3 is only a

‘car porch’, that does not stand, firstly because in spite of the

report dated 27.10.2004 having been placed on record on

3.11.2004, after serving a copy to the petitioner on 1.11.2004,

no objections are filed. That apart, front veranda as shown in

Annexure A-3 has a plinth area of only 10.71 m2 going by

WPC.23174/04

Page numbers

Annexure A and even if that is deducted from the total plinth

area of 300.34 m2, it will also be above the statutory bench mark.

Under such circumstances, the contentions does not survive.

In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is

accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.