Kerala High Court
Adv.M.C.Presannakumar vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
ADV.M.C.PRESANNAKUMAR,
AGED 60 YEARS,S/O.KANNAN,LAKSHMI
NIVAS,P.O.PARAPRAM,PINARAYI VILLAGE,THALASSERY
TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
SMT.MINI.V.A.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,REVENUE
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KANNUR, PIN - 670 003.
3 THE SUB COLLECTOR,
THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT.
4 THE TAHSILDAR
THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT-670 701.
BY ADVS.
SRI. ARUN AJAY SHANKAR (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging
Ext.P5 order of the 4th respondent through which he purported
to exercise his power under Section 15 of the Kerala Building
Tax Act, 1975, in the matter of assessment of building tax and
liability to luxury tax in respect of a residential building
belonging to the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are as
follows:-
The 4th respondent completed assessment of the Kerala
Building Tax Act, 1975 in respect of the building of the
petitioner by taking the total plinth area to be 284.86 square
meters and directed the payment of Rs.4,800/- as building tax
and Rs.4,000/- as luxury tax payable by the petitioner. The
petitioner challenged the determination in Ext.P1 by filing an
appeal before the Sub Collector, Thalassery. The appeal filed
by the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner
thereupon filed a Revision Petition before the District
Collector, Kannur and the District Collector, Kannur by Ext.P3
order disposed of the Revision Petition as under:-
WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017
"റിവിഷൻ ഹരജി പ്രകാരമുള്ള വാസ ഗൃഹത്തിന്റെ താഴത്തെ
നിലയിലെ 15.98 ചതുരശ്ര മീറ്റർ വിസ്തീർണ്ണമുള്ള വരാന്തയും
ഒന്നാം നിലയിലെ 4.179 ചതുരശ്ര മീറ്റർ വിസ്തീർണ്ണമുള്ള
വരാന്തയും മൂന്നുവശങ്ങളും കൽഭിത്തികളോ മറ്റു മറകളോ
ഇല്ലാത്ത തുറസ്സായ സ്ഥലത്തേക്ക് തുറന്നിരിക്കുന്ന
വരാന്തകളുമാണ്. ആയതിനാൽ കേരള മുൻസിപ്പൽ കെട്ടിട
നിർമ്മാണ ചട്ടം 1999 ഉപചട്ടം 8 (111) പ്രകാരം പ്രസ്തുത
വരാന്തകളുടെ വിസ്തീർണത്തിന്റെ 50% വിസ്തീർണം മാത്രമേ
കെട്ടിടനികുതി ചുമത്തുമ്പോൾ ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തേണ്ടതുള്ളൂ..
ആയതിനാൽ 29-01-2016 ലെ ജൂനിയർ സൂപ്രണ്ടിന്റെ പുനഃ
പരിശോധനാ റിപ്പോർട്ടിലെ ആകെ വിസ്തീർണ്ണമായ 280.651
ചതുരശ്ര മീറ്ററിൽ നിന്നും കുറവു ചെയ്യേണ്ടതായ 10.079 ചതുരശ്ര
മീറ്റർ വിസ്തീർണ്ണം കുറവ് ചെയ്ത പ്രകാരം റിവിഷൻ ഹരജി
പ്രകാരമുള്ള വാസ ഗൃഹത്തിന്റെ തറവിസ്തീർണ്ണം 270.571 ചതുരശ്ര
മീറ്റർ ആണെന്നും ഇത് ആഡംബരനികുതിയുടെ പരിധിയായ
278.7 ചതുരശ്ര മീറ്ററിൽ നിന്നും കുറവാണെന്നും ആയതിനാൽ
തന്നെ റിവിഷൻ ഹരജി പ്രകാരമുള്ള കെട്ടിടത്തെ ആഡംബര
നികുതിയിൽ നിന്നും ഒഴിവാക്കി ഇതിനാൽ ഉത്തരവാകുന്നു .
കെട്ടിടത്തിന്റെ വിസ്തീർണ്ണം 270.571 ചതുരശ്ര മീറ്ററായി
കണക്കാക്കി കെട്ടിടനികുതി ഉത്തരവ് തലശ്ശേരി തഹസിൽദാർ
പുതുക്കി നിശ്ചയിക്കുന്നതിന് നടപടി സ്വീകരിക്കേണ്ടതാണ് ."
Following Ext.P3 order, a consequential order was also issued
by the 4th respondent. The said order is on record as Ext.P4.
Thereafter by Ext.P5 order dated 17.07.2017, the 4 th
respondent purporting to exercise the power under Section 15
of the Building Tax Act, 1975 practically restored Ext.P1 order.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that in the facts and circumstances of this case and
considering the findings of the District Collector in Ext.P3
WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017
order, the 4th respondent was not authorized to pass any
further order under Section 15 of the Building Tax Act, 1975.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Roy M.
Mathew v. State of Kerala [2005 (3) KLT 802]. It is also
submitted that where the order of the 4 th respondent had been
set at naught by the revisional authority, namely the District
Collector, the 4th respondent could not have pass any further
order practically refusing to implement the order of the
District Collector. Reliance is placed in this regard to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhopal Sugar Industries
Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Bhopal [AIR 1961 SUPREME
COURT 182].
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that
Ext.P3 order of the District Collector proceeds on the basis
that in terms of the provisions in the Municipality Building
Rules, only 50% of the open area needs to be calculated for the
purposes of plinth area. It is submitted that the application of
the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules for
the purposes of determining the tax payable under the
Building Tax Act, 1975 was obviously an error committed by
the District Collector. He placed reliance on the judgment of
WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017
this Court dated 14.11.2022 in W.P.(C)No.16730 of 2016 to
contend that the determination of tax payable under the
Building Tax Act, 1975 must be with reference to the
provisions of that enactment not with reference to the
provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. It is
submitted that Ext.P5 order of the 4 th respondent also refers to
the proceedings of the District Collector, Kannur (reference
No.6 in Ext.P5). He has placed before me a copy of the
proceedings of the District Collector, referred to as reference
No.6 in Ext.P5, to show that the District Collector himself had
directed the 4th respondent to revise the orders, where benefit
had been granted on the basis of the provisions contained in
the Municipality Building Rules and it is on that basis that the
4th respondent had exercised his powers to rectify an obvious
mistake (under Section 15 of the Building Tax Act, 1975). It is
submitted that in such circumstances, the decisions relied on
by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not have any
application.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the
petitioner is entitled to succeed. While it may be true that the
WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017
Ext.P3 order of the District Collector allowing the Revision
Petition filed by the petitioner by referring to the provisions in
the Municipality Building Rules for the purpose of
determination of plinth area may not be legally correct
especially in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)
No.16730 of 2016, I am of the view that the procedure adopted
by the 4th respondent for rectifying the mistake cannot be
justified in law. While it may have been open to the District
Collector himself to have exercised the power under Section 15
of the Building Tax Act, 1975, it does not lie in the hands of the
4th respondent to exercise such powers to practically undo the
order of the revisional authority, namely the District Collector.
The law is settled by the judgment of this Court in Roy M.
Mathew (supra), where this Court has clearly held that an
error committed by the appellate or revisional authority
cannot be corrected by the original authority by reference to
the provisions of Section 15 of the Building Tax Act, 1975.
Furthermore I am clear in my mind that if this procedure is
permitted, it would amount to the inferior authority directly
refusing to implement the order of the appellate / revisional
authority which would directly militate against the principle
WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017
laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhopal Sugar Industries
Ltd. (supra). In Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. (supra), where it
was held:-
"8. We think that the learned Judicial
Commissioner was clearly in error in holding that
no manifest injustice resulted from the order of the
respondent conveyed in his letter dated March 24,
1955. By that order the respondent virtually refused
to carry out the directions which a superior tribunal
had given to him in exercise of its appellate powers
in respect of an order of assessment made by him.
Such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is
furthermore destructive of one of the basic
principles in the administration of justice based as it
is in this country on a hierarchy of Courts. If a sub-
ordinate tribunal refuses to carry out directions
given to it by a superior tribunal in the exercise of
its appellate powers, the result will be chaos in the
administration of justice and we have indeed found
it very difficult to appreciate the process of
reasoning by which the learned Judicial
Commissioner while roundly condemning the
respondent for refusing to carry out the directions
of the superior tribunal, yet held that no manifest
injustice resulted from such refusal."
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 is
quashed. Since the time for exercising the power of
WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017
rectification of mistake by the Revisional Authority has clearly
expired no purpose will be served by reserving such right in
the Revisional Authority, in the facts and circumstances of this
case.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
DK
WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27341/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
23.07.2014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
20.10.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
01.06.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
11.07.2016 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
17.07.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
07.04.2017
