IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943 W.A. NO.16 OF 2022 (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2021 IN WP(C) 27088/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

V.J. JOSEPH, AGED 58 YEARS VELLIYEPALLY HOUSE, PRAVITHANAM P.O., BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 651 BY ADVS.

SRI.AJI V.DEV SRI.

ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PALA, KOTTAYAM-686 575 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, BHARANANGANAM, PALA, KOTTAYAM-686 578

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, MINI CIVIL STATION, PALA, KOTTAYAM -686 575

4 THE SECRETARY, BHARANANGANAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM-686 578

5 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO TAX, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

17.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

S.V.BHATTI & BASANT BALAJI, JJ.

---------------------------------

Writ Appeal No.16 of 2022 ------------------------------------

Dated: 17^th January, 2022

JUDGMENT

Basant Balaji, J.

The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.

(C)No.27088 of 2021, which was filed challenging Exts.P5(a) and P5(b) orders of assessments passed by the first respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 ('the Act' for short), in respect of the petitioner's residential building. The learned single judge refused to entertain the writ petition, since an effective alternate remedy is available under the Act itself and also the issue resolves around the area of the building which is a disputed question of facts, requiring appreciation of facts.

The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the orders of assessments passed by the first respondent are liable to be set aside on the fundamental grounds of jurisdictional errors, limitation and violation of principles of natural justice. His main contention is regarding the discrepancies in Ext.P9 as well as in Ext.P10. According to him, as per Ext.P9 and as per the Panchayat Register, the floor area of the building is 523.84 M2, whereas in the demand, the floor area is stated to be 959.917 M2.

On going through the judgment of the learned single judge, we find no infirmity in not exercising the discretionary remedy, since there is disputed question of facts in the area of the building. Moreover, he has got a statutory effective and alternative remedy under the Act itself. Without invoking the said statutory remedy, the appellant cannot rush to this Court, challenging the assessment orders. We see that the learned single judge rightly rejected the contention of the appellant/petitioner and we confirm the same. The learned single judge had reserved his liberty to pursue the statutory remedies in accordance with law.

Though we are confirming the order of the learned single judge, we grant liberty to the appellant, to file statutory appeal within a period of six weeks from today. If an appeal is filed within the time stipulated by this judgment, the appellate authority disposes of the appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within six months from the date of filing. The writ appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE ss