Judges : PAREED PILLAY
Sankara Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Chandran - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. 1301 of 1988
Decided On : 01/02/1991
Advocates Appeared :
Thomas V. Jacob For Petitioner H. Sivaraman & Government Pleader For Respondents
Building Tax - Assessment - Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - S.2, S.6, S.11, S.13, S.17 of Kerala Building Tax Act - S.2 of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - S.2 of Kerala Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1963 - Interpretation and General Clauses Act 1125 - Legal Proceedings - Judicial Proceedings - Judicial Acts - Objective Standards - Civil Revision Petition
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit claiming damages for the defendant's alleged arbitrary assessment of Building Tax. Defendant contended entitlement to benefits under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Plaintiff challenged the assessment, which was later overturned by the appellate authority.
Finding of the Court:
The assessing authority under the Building Tax Act is entitled to the benefits under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The suit is not maintainable.
Issues: Whether the assessing authority is entitled to the benefits under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Whether the suit is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The assessing authority's functions under the Building Tax Act constitute judicial proceedings and judicial acts, entitling them to the protection under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The suit is not maintainable due to the entitlement of the assessing authority to the benefits under the said Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the lower court's order, dismissed the suit, and allowed the Civil Revision Petition.
Revision petitioner challenges the order of the Munsiff, Alathur in O.S.No.132 of 1987. Plaintiff filed the suit claiming damages on the ground that the defendant did not act in good faith when he assessed the Building Tax.
2. In the written statement defendant contended inter-alia that he is entitled to the benefits under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The Munsiff rejected the said contention.
3. Plaintiff filed the suit to realise Rs.3,000/- as damages on the allegation -that the defendant out of spite towards him and misusing his official capacity and without bonafides and quite arbitrarily assessed the building tax without any rhyme or reason. The Tahsildar had sent a notice to the plaintiff on 18-11-1985 under S.7(1) of the Kerala Building Tax Act calling upon him to file the return. Case of the plaintiff is that though he submitted the return, defendant without considering the relevant documents and without complying with the provisions in the Act assessed the value of the building at Rs.1,70,056/- and determined the taxasRs.2,101.70. Plaintiff challenged the order before the appellate authority successfully.
4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the defendant (the assessing authority under the act) is entitled to the benefits under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. S.2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (Central Act 59 of 1985) defines 'Judge'. In this Act, 'Judge' means not only every person who is officially designated as a judge, but also every person-
(a) who is empowered by law to give in any legal proceeding a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive; or
(b) who is one of a body of persons which body of persons is empowered by law to give such a judgment as is referred to in Clause (a).
S.2 Of the Kerala Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1963 (Act 4 of 1963) reads:
"No Judge, Magistrate, Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court, for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of his jurisdiction; Provided that he, at the time, in good faith, believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order the act complained of; and no officer of any Court or other person, bound to execute the lawful warrants or orders of any such Judge, Magistrate, Collector, or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court, for the execution of any warrant or order, which he would be bound to execute, if within the jurisdiction of the person issuing the same".
5. S.6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act provides for the determination of the capital value. Under S.6(1) the annual value of a building shall be the annual value fixed for the building in the assessment books of the local authority within whose area the building is situate. But if the assessing authority holds that the annual value fixed for a building in the assessment books of the local authority is too low, he is entitled to make his own assessment after giving notice to the owner of the building. S.6(4) enumerates the factors to betaken into consideration by the assessing authority. They are: the location of the building, nature and quality of the structure of the building, the capability of the building for profitable use, amenities provided in the building, access to the building from public roads or water ways, the value of the land on which the building is constructed, the estimated cost of construction of the building and such other facts as may be prescribed.
6. S.2(d) defines assessing authority. 'Assessing Authority' means an assessing authority appointed under S.4. Under S.4 the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint such officers as they think fit to be assessing authorities for the purposes of the Act and may assign to them such local limits as the G
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.