T.V.Sakariya vs State Of Kerala

A.M.Badar, J

Heard both sides.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the communication at Ext.P2 mentioning the plinth area of ground floor and first floor as

167.09m2 and 93.915m2 respectively. With this, he submitted that the assessment was done by the Tahsildar vide communication at Ext.P5 holding

plinth area as 339.34m2. It is urged that the petitioner preferred appeal challenging this assessment and the Sub Collector, vide order at Ext.P6, has

rejected the appeal of the petitioner. In revision, the District Collector, vide order at Ext.P7, was pleased to direct the Tahsildar to conduct inspection

and to ascertain the area of the building directly, and to measure the newly constructed building and to assess the building tax. Accordingly, the

Tahsildar, vide order at Ext.P8 dated 14.10.2020, inspected the building and measured the area. This, according to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, is incorrect exercise by the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar be directed to re-measure and re-assess the petitioner's building excluding the area

for storing firewood. The petitioner is seeking quashment of the proceedings of the Tahsildar at Ext.P8.

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner as of now challenged the assessment in separate appeal filed by him. According to the

learned Government Pleader, this writ petition is raising disputed questions of facts and as such, not maintainable.

I have considered the submissions so advanced. The assessment of tax by the Tahsildar was challenged by the petitioner initially in appeal and

subsequently in revision. In revision petition, it is seen that the appellate order passed by the Sub Collector was quashed by directing the Tahsildar to

re-measure the area of the building and then to assess the building tax. Ext.P8 is the report of that measurement by the Tahsildar by which fresh

assessment is reportedly made and the matter is pending in appeal at the instance of the petitioner. This fact of filing of appeal is not disputed by the

petitioner.

In this view of the matter, when parallel adjudication by the appellate authority is going on, the petitioner can certainly raise the issue of legality of

measurement at Ext.P8 in that appeal and the appellate authority is in a better position to consider the factual aspect of measurement of the building.

This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed.