The inclusion of a covered roof area in plinth area calculations violates earlier directives; reassessment is mandated.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P2, P5, P8 and P9.

2. It is averred that the petitioner has constructed a residential building in Thiruvalla Municipality, the construction of which was completed in the year 2007 and the total plinth area of the building is 553.19 m². A return was filed and without considering any of the contentions of the petitioner, Ext.P2 assessment order was issued. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred, which was rejected as per Ext.P5. Further, a revision was preferred which also ended up in dismissal as per Ext.P8. Thereafter, petitioner has approached the Government, which was also rejected as per Ext.P9 order. The essential grievance raised by the petitioner is only regarding the inclusion of the roof area having an extent of 176.96 m² for the reason that it is covered by tin sheets. Petitioner relies on Ext.P7 circular issued by the Government based on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.24487 of 2005 dated 07.11.2008, wherein it is clarified that the plinth area of a covered roof top over the concrete building which does not have walls or enclosures will not be taken into account for determining the plinth area of a residential building. Based on the same, it is submitted that the assessment order now issued including the plinth area of a covered roof top is without any basis.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

A perusal of Ext.P9 would reveal that the benefit of Ext.P7 circular was not extended to the petitioner taking a stand that the assessment was completed prior to the issuance of Ext.P7. I am of the view that the stand taken in the orders impugned herein cannot be sustained inasmuch as Ext.P7 was issued clarifying the legal position based on a declaration made by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24487 of 2005 dated 07.11.2008 and therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Ext.P7 circular dated 05.03.2009 issued by the Government. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 4^th respondent, assessing authority. To facilitate a reconsideration, the orders impugned herein are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 4^th respondent for a fresh assessment, granting the benefit of Ext.P7 and excluding the covered roof portion. A fresh order in this regard shall be passed within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-