Partly allowed

George M Mathew v. District Collecrtors

Kerala HC16 Feb 2016WP(C)/5162/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the challenge to an order rejecting a revision petition based on delay, upholding the statutory limitation. It directed the Tahsildar to conduct a fresh measurement of the petitioner's building to determine future luxury tax liability based on accurate plinth area.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to cause a fresh measurement of the building within three months in the presence of the petitioner and to finalize future assessments based on such measurement.

George M Mathew Vs District Collecrtors — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/27TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 5162 of 2016 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GEORGE M MATHEW, S/O.LATE MATHEW, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANALIL HOUSE, THERTHALLY P.O., ALAKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 571.

¶8

BY SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SSENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS SMT.CELINE JOSEPH SRI.P.BHARATHAN SRI.T.T.RAKESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECRTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN: 670 101.

¶11

2. THE SUB COLLECTOR,

¶12

THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN: 670 104.

¶13

3. THE TAHSILDAR,

¶14

TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN: 670 141.

¶15

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D BUILDING SECTION, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN: 670 141.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

WP(C).No. 5162 of 2016 (U)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17/02/2006.

¶23

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17/2/2006.

¶24

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, THIMIRI EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF BUILDING TAX DATED 30/03/2006.

¶25

P3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, THIMIRI EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF BUILDING TAX DATED 12/9/2006.

¶26

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 11/4/2013 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶27

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 3/7/2013.

¶28

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 7/2/2013.

¶29

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, THIMIRI EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LUXURY TAX FOR THE YEAR 2006-2007 TO 2013-2014 DATED 26/7/2013.

¶30

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DETAILS IN THE JANA SAMPARKA PARIPADI EVIDENCING ITS REGISTRATION.

¶31

P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LETTER OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20/11/2013.

¶32

P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN AND PLINTH AREA CALCULATION OF THE PETITIONERS RESIDENCE MESSURED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.

¶33

P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OFTHE FIRST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 9/11/2015.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶39

W.P.(C). No. 5162 of 2016

¶40

===================================================== Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2016

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P11 order of the 1^st respondent, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against an order confirming the levy of building tax and luxury tax on the petitioner, was dismissed on the ground of delay. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that the building owned by the petitioner has been assessed to building tax and luxury tax pursuant to measurements that were allegedly taken improperly. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to his approaching the Chief Minister through a complaint under the 'Janasambarka Paripadi', there was an inspection that was conducted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, where the plinth area of the residential building was seen as totaling 277.60 Sq.Mtr., which is much below the threshold limit for attracting the levy of luxury tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act. It is stated therefore, that the levy of luxury tax on the building owned by the petitioner for the past years has been illegal.

¶43

I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing

¶44

W.P.(C). No. 5162 of 2016

¶45

-2-

¶46

for the respondents.

¶47

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that Ext.P11 order, inasmuch as it rejects the revision petition preferred by the petitioner on the ground that it was preferred beyond the statutory period of limitation, cannot be faulted for the reasons contained therein. It is trite that a statutory authority is bound by the period of limitation prescribed in the statute and he cannot condone the delay unless he has a specific power under the statute to do so. In the instant case, it is apparent that the revision is filed beyond time and hence, Ext.P11 order cannot be said to be legally flawed.

¶48

I take note of the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a serious dispute with regard to the measurement of plinth area of the building. In order to safeguard the interest of the petitioner against an improper assessment of luxury tax, I direct that the 3^rd respondent shall cause a fresh measurement of the building belonging to the petitioner to be done in the presence of the petitioner or his

¶49

-3-

¶50

W.P.(C). No. 5162 of 2016

¶51

representative and in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, so as to ensure that future assessment to luxury tax are completed only on the basis of the measurement so taken. The 3^rd respondent shall cause a measurement of the building to be done as above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and a copy of the measurement sheet shall be made available to the petitioner also. Thereafter, the measurement shall be finalised after hearing the petitioner. Future assessments of luxury tax will be based only on the measurements so finalised by the 3^rd respondent.

¶52

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶53

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶54

das /16.02.2016

George M Mathew v. District Collecrtors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George M Mathew v. District Collecrtors

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

D.Prabhakaran Vs Sri.Biju Prabhakar

M.K.Soman Vs the Authorised Officer, the Kottayam Co-Op. Urban Bank

Kerala State Women Development Corporation Vs Sini N.S

Kadakkarappally Service Co. Operative Bank Limited Vs the Income Tax Officer

Thajudeen Vs the District Collector

R.S. Sunilkumar Vs the Neyyatinkara Co-Operative