Veliyambra Raveendran vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 620 Ker

               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)

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)

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)





                                  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