Kerala High Court
Albert Martin vs The Tahsildar on 29 February, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WA NO. 290 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/1/2024 IN WP(C) NO.10156 OF
2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ALBERT MARTIN,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. MARTIN CHACKO, AGED 30 YEARS, PAMPARAYIL
HOUSE, THATTAKKUZHA POST OFFICE, UDUMBANNOOR
VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685581
BY ADVS.
ARUN CHANDRAN
THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TAHSILDAR,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN - 685584
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IDUKKI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685603
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
WA No.290/24
-:2:-
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP-V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.290/24
-:3:-
JUDGMENT
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
The appellant preferred the writ petition impugning Exts.P2
and P13 assessment orders passed by the 1 st respondent under
the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (for short, the
Act) in respect of the building belonging to him.
2. The appellant constructed a residential building in
2020-2021. The 1st respondent assessed the building to building
tax and luxury tax, quantifying the plinth area as 543.70 sq.
metre. According to the appellant, the total plinth area of his
house would come to 274.39 sq. metres only, excluding the car
porch area of 18.26 sq. metres. However, the 1 st respondent,
while quantifying the plinth area, added the area of the additional
temporary roofing put up by him over the roof of the residential
building for the architectural beauty and protection of the
building The appellant challenged the assessment order of the 1 st
respondent before the appellate authority. The appeal was
rejected on the grounds of delay. Thereafter, the appellant
approached this court by filing WP(C) No.33262/2022, challenging
the assessment orders as well as the appellate order. This court
disposed of the writ petition, remanding the matter to the 1 st
respondent to consider the matter afresh after perusing the
documents, if any, filed by the appellant and after hearing him.
After remand, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P13 order including
the terrace portion also as part of the building and quantifying
the plinth area as 543.70 sq. metre. It is challenging the said
order; the appellant is before us.
3. We have heard Sri.Arun Chandran, the learned counsel
for the appellant and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
4. Ext.P13 order is appealable. The appellant has rushed
to this court without exhausting the statutory appellate remedy.
The contention of the appellant is that the space between the
terrace and the additional roof (truss work) cannot be used for
residential purposes, and the plinth area of the said place has to
be excluded from the plinth area of the building. In support of the
said contention, the appellant has relied on two decisions of this
court in John Mathew v. Tahsildar, Adoor and Others [2018 (1)
KHC 948] and K.Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala [WP(C)
No.24487/2005 dated 7/11/2008]. The dictum laid down in the
said decisions says that if the structure constructed on the
terrace of a building cannot be used for residential purposes, it
cannot be included in the plinth area for the purpose of
assessment to tax. It is a matter to be looked into by the
appellate authority. Hence, this writ appeal is disposed of with a
direction to the appellate authority before whom the appellant
herein is relegated, to take into account the dictum laid down in
the above decisions while deciding the question whether the
space between the terrace and additional roof of the appellant's
building has to be included in the plinth area for the purpose of
assessment of building tax and luxury tax under the Act.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
