Kerala High Court
Arun Vijayan vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WA NO. 537 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.01.2024 IN WP(C) NO.27206 OF 2022
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ARUN VIJAYAN, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O VIJAYAN KUTTY NAIR, PERATTU VEEDU, PADINJATAKARA
MURI, THEVALAKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM
DISTRICT. PIN - 690 524., PIN - 690524
BY ADVS.
SRI.BHARATH MOHAN
SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD
SRI.P.SHANES METHAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM,
KERALA-691013.,
3 THE SUB COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION RD, KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
KERALA-691013.,
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
GROUND FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHERIAZHEEKKAL -
KALLUMMOOTTIL KADAVU - KARUNAGAPPALLY, KERALA-690518.,
BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
W.A. No.537 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
19.01.2024 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C). No.27206 of 2022.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal
are as follows:
The appellant writ petitioner had filed the Writ Petition
impugning Ext.P1 assessment order, Ext.P2 appellate order, and Ext.P5
second revisional order passed by the authorities under the Kerala
Building Tax Act, 1975. The contention of the appellant was essentially
that the authorities below had, while computing the plinth area for the
purposes of levy of building tax and luxury tax, included the plinth area
of an area covered by a canopy, and therefore, the plinth area computed
for the purposes of levy of tax was an inflated one.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition by finding
that the question as to the actual plinth area of the building was a
question of fact and not a question of law, and hence these matters
could not be considered by a writ court in its powers of Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the
very same contention that was urged before the writ court, namely, that
the computation of the plinth area of the building was erroneous in that
it had included therein areas that had to be excluded going by the
provisions of the Building Tax Act. To a pointed question as to whether
the appellant had indicated, that the portion sought to be excluded from
the plinth area of the building was not one used for residential
purposes, in any of the appeals/revisions petitions preferred before the
statutory authorities, the learned counsel was at a loss to point to any
such contention taken before the authorities. There is also no material
produced in the Writ Petition that would support such a contention.
Under the said circumstances, even going by Ext.P6 judgment that is
relied upon by the learned counsel to substantiate his contention on
merits, we find that in the absence of any evidence to show that the
area sought to be excluded was not used for residential purposes, the
orders of the statutory authorities impugned in the Writ Petition cannot
be said to be illegal. For the same reason, we also do not find any error
in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
The Writ Appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
mns
