Remanded

M/S.D.P.Foam,. Pvt. Limited v. the Tahsildar,Kanayannur Taluk

Kerala HC20 Jan 2012WP(C)/7561/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an assessment order passed without hearing the petitioner and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the Tahsildar to conclude proceedings within three months after affording an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P4; remit matter for fresh assessment taking into consideration Exts.P1 and P2; direct Tahsildar to conclude proceedings within three months.

M/S.D.P.Foam,. Pvt. Limited Vs the Tahsildar,Kanayannur Taluk — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/30TH POUSHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 7561 of 2004 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S. D.P. FOAM PVT.LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT A-24 TO A-26 & A-38 TO A-40 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SODARAPET, PONDICHERRY-605 111, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR D.P. VASUDEVAN, 47, PULLA AVENUE, SHENOY NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 030.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.POULOSE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK,

¶11

OLD COLLECTORATE BUILDING, ERNAKUALM

¶12

KERALA-682 011.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE

¶14

SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

3. SRI.M.A. MOHAMMED BABU MOOPAN, EMGEE SQUARE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT C.C.36/1895, (FORMERLY DOOR NO.36/1507-A), SEBASTIAN ROAD, KALOOR KOCHI-682 017.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C)NO.7561/2003

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 30/8/1999 NO.3522/I/1999.

¶24

P2 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30/8/1999 EXECUTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/10/2003 IN WP(C)31805/2003(J) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶26

P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/9/2003 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

B.P. Ray, J.

====================================

¶33

W.P.(C)No.7561/2004

¶34

====================================

¶35

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2012.

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶38

Government Pleader.

¶39

Petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:

¶40

“i) call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and to issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction quashing the same; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to pass fresh assessment order taking into consideration Exts.P1 to P2; iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the respondents are not entitled to realise any amount as per Ext.P4; iv) issue any other writ, order or direction this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case; and v) award costs of this W.P.C. to the petitioner.”

¶41

Petitioner's case is that the shoproom covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in

¶42

the multi-storied building was constructed for the petitioner at it's

¶43

own expense. It spent the money for the construction in pursuance to

¶44

Ext.P2 agreement. Accordingly, the said shoproom is liable to be

¶45

W.P.(C)No.7561/2004 -:2:-

¶46

assessed under Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Petitioner's contention is that it has to be separately assessed and since no documentary evidence was produced to show that the petitioner spent for it separately, the building was taxed as a one unit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given an opportunity before Ext.P4 order was passed. Taking into consideration of the fact that Ext.P4 order was passed without hearing the petitioner, I have no hesitation to set aside Ext.P4 and remit the matter to the first respondent for readjudication in accordance with law. In order to avoid delay, if the petitioner appears before the Tahsildar on 6.2.2012 along with a copy of this judgment, the Tahsildar shall conclude the proceedings within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶47

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶48

B.P. Ray, Judge.

¶49

sl.

M/S.D.P.Foam,. Pvt. Limited v. the Tahsildar,Kanayannur Taluk

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.D.P.Foam,. Pvt. Limited v. the Tahsildar,Kanayannur Taluk

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anna Kochouseph Vs S. Roopakala Jagath

Thomas Lukose Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Anna Kochouseph Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

M/S.Season Rubbers Vs Director of Industries & Commerce

A.a.Yousuf and Others Vs the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk & Ars.

G.Madanan Vs K.S.E.B. and Others