Manjula Chellur, C.J.

1. The party before us being one and the same in both the appeal and the writ petition, these matters are clubbed together and disposed of by this judgment. Even otherwise, the issue involved is common to both the matters.

2. The writ petitioner-appellant is before us. So far as appeal is concerned, it is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4149 of 2013 declining to quash Ext.P16, the rejection of claim of the appellant to extend building tax exemption to the appellant. W.P.(C)No.6154 of 2013 is filed challenging Ext.P18 dated 13.02.2013, orders passed by the original authority, i.e., the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur assessing the building tax.

3. It is necessary to narrate certain facts in order to understand the real issue of controversy involved in the above matters:

M/s.Dream World Water Park, Athirappally Road, Chalakudy, Thrissur approached this Court challenging assessment of building tax as per Ext.P1 claiming an amount of Rs.8,38,800/- referring to total plinth area as 5124.64 square metres (4602.45 as commercial building and 522.19 as residential building). Ext.P1 assessment order dated 1.2.2005 came to be passed on account of Village Officer reporting about the construction of the building by the appellant-writ petitioner which requires assessment of tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act'). Aggrieved by this assessment order, appeal came to be filed wherein some amount came to be deposited on account of conditional order. During the pendency of the appeal, re-measurement with the assistance of the Assistant Executive Engineer of P.W.D. came to be made as per the order dated 31.3.2005 of the R.D.O. After joint inspection and measurement of the building, to the misfortune of the appellant-writ petitioner, the area was found to be more than 5124.64 square metres as it was reported as 5500.45 square metres. The appeal came to be dismissed by the R.D.O. as per Ext.P6 order dated 1.11.2008. Pursuant to Ext.P6 order of the Appellate Authority, the assessing authority redetermined the building tax on the enhanced plinth area and fixed the tax at Rs.9,63,000/- instead of Rs.8,38,800/-as per Ext.P7 dated 21.11.2008. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 assessment order, the appellant preferred W.P.(C) No.37489 of 2008 before this Court. This writ petition came to be disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment dated 23.7.2009. As per this judgment, directions were given to the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority vide paragraph 4 of the judgment which reads as under:

“In the above circumstances, Ext.P6 order passed by the second respondent in the appeal is set aside and the second respondent is hereby directed to consider the appeal dated 22.04.2005 preferred by the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be perused and finalised as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is also made clear that till such final orders are passed on the appeal as aforesaid, all further coercive steps stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is further made clear that a copy of the report dated 17.09.2008 stated as filed before the second respondent pursuant to the re-measurement shall be made available to the petitioner, if applied for.”

Apart from the earlier amount of Rs.2,09,700/-, further amount of Rs.2,51,100/- came to be deposited as per the orders of the learned Single Judge at the time of granting interim relief. Before disposal of the appeal by the R.D.O., the appellant filed a petition claiming exemption under Section 3(2) of the Act contending that since manufacturing process is involved in the amusement park run by him, it deserves to be exempted from paying the building tax. However, the appellant was directed to forward a copy of the a