Kerala High Court
Sandhya S vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:6792
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3341 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SANDHYA S.
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O RAMESH,
'LAKSHMI VILAS', THRIKKARIYOOR P.O.,
THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT, PIN - 686692
BY ADVS.
MANU VYASAN PETER
P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SABU GEORGE
B.ANUSREE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673
4 THE TAHSILDAR
KOTHAMANGALAM, REVENUE TOWER,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686666
2025:KER:6792
W.P.(C). No.3341 of 2025
-:2:-
BY ADV. JASMIN M.M.,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:6792
W.P.(C). No.3341 of 2025
-:3:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.3341 of 2025
---------------------------------------
Dated this 28th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner's residential building, constructed in Survey
Nos.581/13 and 581/14 of Thrikkariyoor Village, Kothamangalam Taluk,
was subjected to building tax assessment initially on 05.08.2021.
However, by an order dated 20.08.2022, the Revisional Authority - the
District Collector, set aside the assessment and remanded it for
reconsideration, taking note of the contention of the petitioner that
there is a difference in measurement. It was specifically directed by the
revisional authority that the difference in measurement carried out by
the Village Officer and the Tahsildar ought to be verified and
reconsidered, for which purpose the matter was remanded.
2. Subsequently, the 4th respondent, by Exhibit-P8 order
dated 06.01.2023, found that the measurement noted by the charge
officer does not warrant any interference, since there is no change in
measurements. The said order was challenged before the Appellate
Authority which was dismissed by order dated 24.02.2023. The revision
petition filed against the appellate order was also dismissed as per the
impugned order dated 01.08.2024. Petitioner has hence approached
2025:KER:6792
this Court challenging Exhibit-P11 and Exhibit-P12 orders.
3. I have heard Sri. Manu Vyasan Peter, the learned counsel
for the petitioner and Smt. Jasmin M. M., the learned Government
Pleader.
4. The assessment order dated 06.01.2023 was challenged
before the Appellate Authority. However, the appeal was dismissed,
stating that the earlier appeal filed by the petitioner in respect of the
same building had already been dismissed, and therefore, no
proceedings can be initiated in the appeal. The same reason was
reiterated by the Revisional Authority as well, while dismissing the
revision.
5. On a perusal of the reasons mentioned in Exhibit-P11 and
Exhibit-P12, it is evident that they are perverse. The prior orders in
appeal or revision cannot be relied upon to dismiss the appeal and
revision preferred against the order passed after remand. The appeal
before the third respondent filed on 28.01.2023 was against the
assessment order dated 06.01.2023, and therefore, consideration of the
contentions urged in the said appeal ought to have been appreciated.
The same is the case with the Revisional Authority also. Hence, I am of
the view that there was no proper consideration of the appeal on
merits. Hence, Exhibit-P11 and Exhibit-P12 orders are liable to be set
aside and a reconsideration be directed.
2025:KER:6792
6. In the result, I set aside Exhibit-P11 order dated 24.02.2023
as well as Exhibit-P12 order dated 01.08.2024 issued by respondents 3
and 2 respectively. The third respondent is directed to reconsider the
appeal filed by the petitioner dated 28.01.2023, afresh, after granting
an opportunity of hearing. The aforesaid consideration shall be
completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of
30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
Jka/28.01.25.
2025:KER:6792
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3341/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. C2-
BA(2770)/2019 ISSUED BY THE NELLIKKUZHY
GRAMAPANCHAYATH.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEASUREMENT SKETCH
PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THRIKKARIYOOR OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI
ACT, 2005.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEASUREMENT SKETCH
OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT, 2005.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
18.08.2021 PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR,
KOTHAMANGALAM.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
18.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR,
KOTHAMANGALAM.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2022
PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2022
PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
06.01.2023 TOGETHER WITH THE DEMAND
NOTICE PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR,
KOTHAMANGALAM.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
24.12.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04.01.2025
ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
2025:KER:6792
OFFICER, TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2023
ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2024
PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.06.2024
ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM.
