Remanded

Sri. Kadar Koya Haji, v. the Secretary to Government

Kerala HC8 Aug 2023WP(C)/8852/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Responding to a writ petition challenging an assessment order based on disputed building measurements, the High Court of Kerala remanded the matter for a fresh measurement by a team of Revenue Officials. The Court mandated a final assessment within ten days that cannot be challenged further. No constitutional provision was cited or applied in the order.

What did the court decide?

Remand to the 5th Respondent (Tahsildar) for a fresh measurement of the building by a team of Revenue Officials within ten days; the resulting assessment is to be final.

Sri. Kadar Koya Haji, Vs the Secretary to Government — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 8852 OF 2019

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

SRI. KADAR KOYA HAJI,
AGED 60 YEARS, KUTTIKKANDY HOUSE,
KINALUR P.O, PIN 673 612, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS.
LUIZ GODWIN D’COUTH
SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE(J)
SRI.BIJO FRANCIS

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 020.

¶11

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE PIN 673 020.

¶12

4 THE THAHASILDAR, KOILANDY TALUK, PIN 673 305.

¶13

5 THE THAHASILDAR, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 573.

¶14

6 THE DEPUTY THAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY SECTION, TALUK OFFICE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 573.

¶15

7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KINALUR VILLAGE OFFICE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 573.

¶16

BY ADV ARUN AJAY SANKAR-GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 8852 OF 2019

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed impugning Exhibit P-8 order.

¶22

Earlier an assessment order No.C1-12687/07 dated 06.03.2008 was passed with respect to the building of the petitioner, assessing the building tax of Rs.4,800/- (Four thousand eight hundred only) per annuam and Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand only) per annuam as luxury tax for the residential building of the petitioner in the Kinaloor village taking the plinth area as 283.14 Sq. Mtrs. Petitioner filed appeal against the said assessment order. The appellate authority noted that the Thahasildar, Koyilandy had called for report from the Village Officer, Kinalur village and the Village Officer reported that the plinth area of building comes to 274.25 Sq. Mtrs. The said building was measured by the Charge Officer and he found 283.14 Sq. Mtrs. as the plinth area. On the basis of the report of the Charge Officer, the assessing authority imposed tax. There was a difference in both the measurements. Therefore, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to the Tahsildar, Koyilandy for fresh assessment. It appears that the Tahsildar, Koyilandy has again taken the measurement of the building and as per the fresh measurement, the plinth area is

¶23

WP(C) NO. 8852 OF 2019

¶24

¶25

281.21 Sq. Mtrs. and therefore building tax and luxury tax has been levied on the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner disputes the measures taken by the Tahsildar, Koyilandy. He further submits that the Special Revenue Inspector, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode found that the plinth area of the building is 276.82 Sq. Mtrs and the Tahsildar has found it as 281.21 Sq. Mtrs.

¶26

Considering the aforesaid submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the 5^th respondent Tahsildar for passing fresh orders after taking fresh measurement of the building of the petitioner by a team of Revenue Officials consisting of Revenue Inspector, 5^th respondent Tahsildar, Deputy Tahsildar and Special Revenue Inspector. Within a period of ten days from the date of communication of this order to the Tahsildar, the said team should visit the Village of the petitioner wherein the building is situated, for fresh measurement. Thereafter, the liability of tax, if any, regarding building tax and luxury tax should be returned. The said order and measurement should be final and petitioner will not challenge the same before any authority.

¶27

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶28

Svn

¶29

WP(C) NO. 8852 OF 2019

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8852/2019

¶32

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶33

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. 103/07-08` `DATED 31-07-2007 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,` `PANANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-11-2011 ISSUED` `BY R.D.O KOZHIKODE`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C1-12687/2007 DATED` `18-12-2013`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08-03-2017 ISSUED` `BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR,` `KOZHIKODE`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. BT/3/5345/2017 DATED` `21-07-2017 ISSUED BY THE THAMARASSERY TAHASILDAR`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23-07-2018` `AND RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,` `KOZHIKODE`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. BT3-5345/17 DATED` `22-11-2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT` `TAHASILDAR, THAMARASSERY`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 01-02-2019` `ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR`

Sri. Kadar Koya Haji, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kadar Koya Haji, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Royal Blue Hotels Private Limited, Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

M/S. Eon Properties Private Limited Vs the State Tax Officer

Lulu International Shopping Mall Private Limited, Vs District Collector

Peroorkada Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs the Income Tax Officer

P.v.Shajahan Vs Azhiyur Grama Panchayath

Fathima Memorial Educational Trust Vs the District Collector