Kerala High Court
Muhammad Ali Kaipravan vs The District Collector on 27 March, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 10442 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMAD ALI KAIPRAVAN,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. MOIDU HAJI, RESIDING AT KAIPRAVAN HOUSE, MAKKIYAD
(PO), THONDERNADU VILLAGE, VELLAMUNDA, MANNATHAVADY
TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT- REP.BY POWER OF ATTERNEY
HOLDER, MUHAMMAD ALI A.V., AKKARA VAZHAYIL HOUSE, AGED
54 YEARS, S/O MOYI HAJI, KOROME (PO), THONDERNADU
VILLAGE, MANNATHAVADY TALUK WAYNAD DISTRICT,, PIN -
670731
BY ADVS.
M.PROMODH KUMAR
MAYA CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, PIN - 673121
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
RDO OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD
DIST, PIN - 670645
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
VYTHIRI TALUK, THALUK OFFICE VYTHIRI, PIN - 673576
SMT. RESHMITA RAMACHANDRAN-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.10442 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner impugning Exts.P1 to P3 assessment order,
appellate order and revisional order passed under the
provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, and Rules
made thereunder.
2. The petitioner is the owner of 11 apartments of
residential complex for which separate municipal
numbers have been given. The petitioner occupies one
apartment and he has given other apartments on rent.
The plinth area of the all eleven apartments has been
taken into consideration for the purposes of imposing
the building tax and luxury tax under the provisions of
the Kerala Building Tax Act.
3. The issue involved in this writ petition is covered
by the judgment of this Court in W.P(C.) 30149 of 2021
dated 12.02.2024. The learned counsel for the
petitioner does not have any answer to the fact that the
issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the
said judgment.
In view thereof, I do not find any ground to
interfere in the impugned orders, and the writ petition
fails. Therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE
AP
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10442/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DCWYD/6660/2022-
B5 DATED 10.7.2023 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION
Exhibit P1(a) THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT NO.C2/8448/2019 DATED
29.07.2020
Exhibit P2(a) THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.2022 CONFIRMING EXT.
P2 ORDER OF ASSESSMENT
Exhibit P3(a) THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3
