Dismissed

M.V. Beena v. the District Collector

Kerala HC7 Jan 2020WP(C)/101/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the District Collector to urgently consider a pending statutory revision filed by the petitioner and pass final orders within three months after giving the petitioner a reasonable hearing. The petitioner was also permitted to seek interim measures for measuring the built-up area.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent directed to pass final orders on the pending revision within three months after affording a hearing; permission to seek interim measurement.

M.V. Beena Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.101 OF 2020(K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.V. BEENA

¶8

AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. SUDHAKARAN, KARUMBAKKAL HOUSE, VIYOOR VILLAGE, PULIYANCHERRY DESOM, MUCHUKUNNU, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANOOP

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 020

¶12

2 THE TAHSILDAR, KOYILANDY, KOZHKODE, PIN-673 305

¶13

3 SUB COLLECTOR/APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 001

¶14

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VIYYUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 307

¶15

SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT. PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.101 OF 2020(K)

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(C) No.101 of 2020

¶22

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

¶23

Dated this the 07^th day of January, 2020

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The case projected in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:

¶26

The petitioner and her husband owned 12 cents and 8.64 cents of land as per Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-3 assignment deeds. These are adjacent properties. The husband of the petitioner constructed a pump house in his property as evident by Ext.P-5 permit issued by the Local Authority. The petitioner constructed a residential building in her property as evident by Ext.P-2 building permit. Now the respondents imposed luxury tax to the residential building of the petitioner under Sec.5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, treating the plinth area of the pump house owned by the husband of the petitioner along with the residential building of the petitioner as a single unit. A perusal of Ext.P-2 building permit will show that the plinth area of the building is only 271.04 Sq.Meter. Now the plinth area of the pump house is added to the residential building finding that the pump house is part of the kitchen of

¶27

WP(C).No.101 OF 2020(K)

¶28

¶29

the residential house and thereafter imposed luxury tax under Sec.5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. This is absolutely illegal. Even though, the petitioner challenged the asessment, the Appellate Authority also confirmed the same. Now the petitioner filed a revision before the 1^st respondent as evident by Ext.P-10, the same is also not considered by the 1^st respondent.

¶30

It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition with the following prayer.

¶31

“.......... direct the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P10 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, subject to the result of the above Writ Petition (Civil).”

¶32

Heard Sri.P.V.Anoop, learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

petitioner and Smt.Thushara James, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶34

It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Ext.P-10 has been preferred as a statutory revision, which is now pending before the 1^st respondent and that orders have not been rendered in the said revisional proceedings, till date.

¶35

After hearing both sides, it is ordered in the interest of justice that in case, Ext.P-10 revisional proceedings is still pending

¶36

WP(C).No.101 OF 2020(K)

¶37

¶38

consideration before the 1^st respondent-District Collector, then it is ordered that the 1^st respondent will take up the matter raised in Ext.P-10 revision and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through his authorised representative/counsel appearing, so as to pass final orders on the said revisional proceedings, without much delay, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the measurement of the built area of the subject building property is highly relevant and imperative, for the proper adjudication of the reivisional proceedings. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to file appropriate application in the said revision seeking steps in that regard and it is for the District Collector to consider such matter as an interim measure and may take necessary steps for measurement of the built up area of the building, if it is necessary and relevant for the adjudication of the revisional proceedings.

¶40

WP(C).No.101 OF 2020(K)

¶41

¶42

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition

¶43

(Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶46

vgd

¶47

WP(C).No.101 OF 2020(K)

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED BEARING NO.502/07 DATED 13.02.2007 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE KOYILANDY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BEARING NO.BL 44/07 DATED 15.06.2007 OF THE KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED BERING NO.503/07 DATED 13.02.2007 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE KOYILANDY EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 22.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VIYYUR TO THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXHIBIT P3 DOCUMENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BEARING NO.66/09 DATED 20.02.2009 ISSUED BY THE KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY TO HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01.12.2012 (3 IN NUMBER) ISSUED BY THE KJYILANDY MUNICIPALITY TO HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEARING NO C2/4255/12 (2 IN NUMBER) EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.E1208/14 DATED 04.09.2014 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR /APPELLATE AUTHORITY EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION DATED JANUARY 2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE

M.V. Beena v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.V. Beena v. the District Collector

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

Kgm Gold Vs the State Tax Officer

Jacob John Vs Indian Overseas Bank

T.N. Sankarapillai Vs the Intelligence Officer

Mangalam Gold Vs the State Tax Officer (Ib)

Baby Cherian, Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Penco Marbles and Granites Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt)