LILLYKUTTY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The appellant has approached this Court in a writ petition aggrieved by the proceedings of the District Collector, Palakkad, at Ext. P5 dated 18/08/2011. It was a challenge against the orders of RDO, Ottappalam, at Ext. P3 dated 11/01/2011. It is not in dispute that, after a plan being approved by local authority, the appellant put up construction of a residential building and the plan was approved for 276.75 Sq.Mtrs. of building consisting of ground floor and first floor. Subsequently, luxury tax was imposed as per Ext. P2 taking the plinth area of the building as 297.2 Sq.Metres. Challenging the same an appeal came to be filed. During the pendency of the appeal, Senior Superintendent was deputed to inspect the building who gave measurement of the plinth area as 291.04 Sq. Metres. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision came to be filed before the District Collector. Again, the Asst. Executive Engineer, PWD Sub Division, Mannarkkad, was deputed to measure the property with prior notice to the owner. This time, the measurement was 279.37 Sq.Metres. Aggrieved by the same, a writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) The learned Single Judge opined that inclusion of terrace resulted in the wrong calculation as only 50% of the terrace and 50% of the veranda had to be taken into consideration for assessment of the plinth area. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the plea of the writ petitioner on the ground that both authorities have concurrently found area of the building attracted luxury tax and different stand was taken at different points of time so also on the ground that writ petitioner took up different stand at various stages.