IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.363 OF 2021(U)
PETITIONER:
VELIYAMBRA RAVEENDRAN, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.SANKARAN VELIYAMBRA, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HOTEL BLUE NILE, RESIDING AT VELYAMBRA HOUSE, NARATHU
P.O., S.N.PARK, KANNUR 670 601.
SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
SRI.A.V.VIVEK
SRI.GODWIN JOSEPH
SMT.APARNA CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT FOR REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., PIN 695 001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR,
COLLECTORATE ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
THAVAKKARA, KANNUR - 670 002
3 TAHSILDAR, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR TALUK OFFICE,
SOUTH BAZAR, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR 670 002
4 VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNUR - II, TALUK OFFICE PREMISES,
CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR - 670002
SMT. THUSHARA JAMES - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.363 OF 2021(U)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of January 2021 The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P4 proceedings issued by the third respondent - Tahsildar under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 and contends that the area to which tax has now been assessed is, in fact, not an enclosed one, but that a roof has been constructed on it so as to protect the existing building from rain and to assist open parking of six vehicles. The petitioner says that without considering any of these aspects, the Tahsildar has now issued Ext.P4 raising a demand of Rs.13,64,400/- and he asserts that this has been done illegally and without any basis.
2. Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, added that, as has been averred in the writ petition, the roofing was constructed only to protect the building in question and that even though it can be used for parking six vehicles, his client is willing not to do so and to even demolish the same, if it is found so necessary in future. Sri.Sajith Kumar submitted that, therefore, the structure in question can only be construed as a temporary one, which cannot be WP(C).No.363 OF 2021(U) 3 assessed to tax, as has been done through Ext.P4. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P4 be set aside and the demand now made by the Tahsildar be quashed by this Court.
3. In response, the learned Government Pleader, Smt.Thushara James, submitted that the petitioner's contention, as voiced by his learned counsel, cannot be accepted because, as is evident from paragraph 5 of the writ petition, he himself admits that the structure is also used as a parking area. She submitted that, therefore, the Tahsildar is well within his powers to assess the said area under the provisions of the Act. However, to a pointed question from this Court, Smt.Thushara James submitted that if the petitioner is not going to use the area in question as a parking area and if he is willing to demolish it, if so required by the competent Authorities, then she will not stand in the way of this Court remitting the matter to the Tahsildar for a fresh consideration, taking note of these aspects also.
In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P4, not because I have found against it affirmatively, but so as to pave way for a fresh consideration of the matter by the third respondent - WP(C).No.363 OF 2021(U) 4 Tahsildar, who shall do so, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as per law. It is so ordered.
The afore exercise shall be completed by the Tahsildar as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and until such time as fresh orders are issued, I record the submission of Sri.Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that his client will not use the structure in question or the area under it for parking vehicles.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.363 OF 2021(U)
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND IN FORM NO.1 UNDER
RULE 3, ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANNUR-II.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.11.2020
ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KANNUR
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RETURNS DATED NIL FILED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2020
ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR ALONG WITH THE
ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES