MARY LONAPPAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P13 order passed by the 1st respondent in connection with the building tax assessment of the petitioner's building. It is the case of the petitioner that while in 1994, she had completed the additional construction on an old house which was constructed in 1968, the respondents while completing the assessment in respect of the additional construction effected by the petitioner, included even the plinth area of the house that was constructed in 1968. She had produced Ext. P2 plan showing the plinth area pertaining to the additional construction that was proposed and this showed an area of only 242.70 sq. metres. The assessment to building tax however, was made by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar by taking the total plinth area as 390 sq. metres in Ext. P6 order. In an appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent chose not to interfere with the findings of the 3rd respondent and rejected the appeal vide Ext. P8 order dated 08.01.1999. A further revision preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent also did not meet with any success. The petitioner therefore approached this Court through W.P. (C). No. 21187 of 1999 which was disposed by Ext. P11 judgment dated 07.09.2007 directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders. It is the petitioner's case that thereafter, she approached the District Collector and even submitted Ext. P12 hearing note before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent however, without averting to the documents produced by the petitioner, proceeded to confirm the assessment by adopting the Plinth area of the new construction as 390 sq. metres. Ext. P13 dated 01.04.2008 is the order of the 1st respondent, which is impugned in the writ petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein Ext. P13 order is sought to be justified by pointing out that the findings therein were rendered solely on account of the fact that the petitioner had not produced any document to show the plinth area that pertained to the old building and that which pertained to the additional construction that was effected in 1994. It is pointed out that, in the absence of any document to show the actual plinth area of the additional construction, the 1st respondent had no other option but to confirm the assessment already done by the Tahsildar in Ext. P6 order.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Paul Abraham Vakkannal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.