Dismissed

Chandrashekharan Nair v. the District Collector

Kerala HC5 Oct 2023WP(C)/7825/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging an assessment order imposing luxury tax on a building. The court held that the finding of fact regarding the plinth area measurement was final and no grounds existed for interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it had no merit; no interference was granted with the assessment order.

Chandrashekharan Nair Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 13TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7825 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

CHANDRASHEKHARAN NAIR

¶8

AGED 91 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, NADUVAKUNNATHU,
THEKKUMMURI, PULIYANNOOR PALAI 686 573.
BY ADVS.
R.KRISHNA RAJ
SMT.E.S.SONI
SMT.KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, COLLECTORATE P.O. KOTTAYAM 686 002.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MEENACHIL TOWN , PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 575.

¶12

3 TAHSILDAR, MINI CIVIL STATION, GROUND FLOOR, 123, RAMAPURAM ROAD, MEENACHIL 686 577.

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PULIYANNOOR MUTHOLY KODUNGOOR ROAD, 686 574.

¶14

5 MUTHOLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUTHOLI P.O. KOTTAYAM 686 573.

¶15

6 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTVIE ENGINEER (BUILDINGS), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM 686 008. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.SUNIL CYRIAC SHRI.SUNIL CYRIAC,SC,MUTHOLY GRAMA PANCH

¶16

BY ADV
JASMINE M.M.-GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 7825 OF 2021

¶19

..2..

¶20

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(C) No.7825 of 2021

¶23

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

¶24

Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2023

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The present Writ Petition (Civil) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for staying the operation of Exts.P6, P7 and P8, ie., the order issued by the Tahsildar, Meenachil Taluk assessing the petitioner’s building situated in the landed property comprising in Block No.18 in Re-Survey No.18/12 of Puliyannoor Village of Meenachil Taluk in Kottayam District.

¶27

The petitioner’s building was inspected and measurement of the plinth area was taken, on measurement it was found that the plinth area of the building of the petitioner was 281.97 Square Metres and therefore, the Luxury Tax for the period of 2013-2014 was levied for the said building and thereafter, as per the revised rate has been levied. In pursuance of the said

¶28

..3..

¶29

WP(C) NO. 7825 OF 2021

¶30

assessment order, Ext.P7 demand notice has been issued. The petitioner has paid the building tax of Rs.4,800/- and as per Ext.P8-assessment proceedings, nothing is required to be paid by the petitioner in respect of the building tax.

¶31

What is the plinth area of the building is a question of fact, which can be ascertained by taking measurement by the assessing authority-Tahsildar. In the present case, in compliance of Ext.P5-judgment dated 12.10.2020 in W.P.(C) No.27510 of 2017 filed by the petitioner, the first measurement was taken on the building of the petitioner and in strict compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, the assessment order has been passed.

¶32

This Court finds no ground to interfere with the finding of the fact regarding the plinth area of the building of the petitioner, it has been determined to be 281.97 Square Metre. Therefore, there is no scope for any interference on finding of the fact regarding the plinth area of the building of the petitioner.

¶33

WP(C) NO. 7825 OF 2021

¶34

..4..

¶35

The writ petition has no merit, accordingly, it is

¶36

dismissed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

ded

¶41

WP(C) NO. 7825 OF 2021

¶42

..5..

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7825/2021

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
PANCHAYATH WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
DATED 12.01.2016.
EXHIBIT P2COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
23.12.2013.
EXHIBIT P3COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P4COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
DATED 08.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P5COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 27510/17
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DTD
12.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P6COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DATED
06.02.2021.
EXHIBIT P7COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 06.02.2021.
EXHIBIT P8COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2021.

Chandrashekharan Nair v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekharan Nair 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

Spinny Varghese K, Vs the Tahsildar

M/S. Puravankara Limited, Vs State of Kerala

Shastha Enterprises Vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals)

Varghese M.D., Vs Union of India

Shobhana P.R. Vs Union of India

M/S Indus Motor Co. Pvt.Ltd, Vs M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd.