T.V.Sakariya vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 15405 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
     THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 11229 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

             T.V.SAKARIYA
             AGED 75 YEARS
             S/O. LATE VARKEY, THURUTHEL HOUSE, POTTANKADU P.O.,
             BISONVALLEY, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685565.

             BY ADV P.P.BIJU


RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
             GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEXE,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

     2       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
             COLLECTORATE, PAINAV P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685603.

     3       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DEVIKULAM P.O.,
             IDUKKI DISTRICT-685613.

     4       THE TAHSILDAR,
             UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMKANDAM P.O.,
             IDUKKI DISTRICT-685553.

     5       BISONVALLEY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
             REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, POTTANKADU P.O.,
             BISONVALLEY, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685565.

     6       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             BISONVALLEY VILLAGE OFFICE, BISONVALLEY, IDUKKI
             DISTRICT-685565.

             SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT. PLEADER


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   22.07.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.11229 of 2021                  2


                              JUDGMENT

Heard both sides.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the

communication at Ext.P2 mentioning the plinth area of ground

floor and first floor as 167.09m2 and 93.915m2 respectively.

With this, he submitted that the assessment was done by the

Tahsildar vide communication at Ext.P5 holding plinth area as

339.34m2. It is urged that the petitioner preferred appeal

challenging this assessment and the Sub Collector, vide order

at Ext.P6, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. In

revision, the District Collector, vide order at Ext.P7, was

pleased to direct the Tahsildar to conduct inspection and to

ascertain the area of the building directly, and to measure the

newly constructed building and to assess the building tax.

Accordingly, the Tahsildar, vide order at Ext.P8 dated

14.10.2020, inspected the building and measured the area.

This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is

incorrect exercise by the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar be

directed to re-measure and re-assess the petitioner's building

excluding the area for storing firewood. The petitioner is

seeking quashment of the proceedings of the Tahsildar at

Ext.P8.

3. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the

petitioner as of now challenged the assessment in separate

appeal filed by him. According to the learned Government

Pleader, this writ petition is raising disputed questions of facts

and as such, not maintainable.

4. I have considered the submissions so advanced. The

assessment of tax by the Tahsildar was challenged by the

petitioner initially in appeal and subsequently in revision. In

revision petition, it is seen that the appellate order passed by

the Sub Collector was quashed by directing the Tahsildar to re-

measure the area of the building and then to assess the

building tax. Ext.P8 is the report of that measurement by the

Tahsildar by which fresh assessment is reportedly made and

the matter is pending in appeal at the instance of the

petitioner. This fact of filing of appeal is not disputed by the

petitioner.

In this view of the matter, when parallel adjudication by

the appellate authority is going on, the petitioner can certainly

raise the issue of legality of measurement at Ext.P8 in that

appeal and the appellate authority is in a better position to

consider the factual aspect of measurement of the building.

This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is

dismissed. Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE

smp

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11229/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 4.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 1.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.6.2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.9.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp