Authorities must consider relevant certificates when determining plinth area under building tax laws.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J The appellant essentially calls into question the manner and correctness of the fixing of the plinth area of his building, by the various Authorities operating under the Building Tax Act , 1975, (‘Act’ for short).

2. The appellant constructed a building and obtained Ext.P1 Building Certificate from the Local Self Government Institution, wherein, its plinth area was shown to be 276.34 sq.m.

3. However, the appellant was, thereupon, served with Ext.P2 notice under the ‘Act’, in which the plinth area was assessed to be 303.68 sq.m; against which, he filed a statutory appeal before the Sub – Collector, which lead to an Ext.P4 order, wherein, the area came to be reduced to 290.35 sq.m. The appellant did not stop there and preferred a further statutory Revision before the District Collector, which culminated in Ext.P5 order. In this order, the District Collector has recorded that the plinth area of the building was verified by a competent team of the Public Works Department, in the presence of the appellant, to be 2 only 83.44 sq.m.

4. The appellant challenges Ext.P5 on the singular ground that the plinth area of the building shown therein is incorrect and goes contrary to Ext.P1.

5. Sri.Ahmed Fazil - learned counsel for the appellant, argued that, when the District Collector considered the statutory Revision of his client, he had a duty to take into account and advert to Ext.P1 certificate of the Local Self Government Institution, but that this has not been done. He argued that, without such a course, the determination of the plinth area solely under the aegis of the PWD was incorrect and improper. He fortified his submissions relying upon Ext.P6 communication of the Assistant Executive Engineer of the PWD, to its Executive Engineer, wherein, it has been recommended that the Town Planning Authorities must also be taken into account, because the plinth area and the carpet area of to the building requires to be assessed in terms of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 also.

6. Smt.Thushara James – learned Government Pleader, however, submitted that this Court cannot go into a fact-finding exercise as has been rightly found by the learned Single Judge, particularly because its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the appellant. She contended that the District Collector has fixed the plinth area as per the specific criteria under the ‘Act’; and that he could only have done so, without reference to the Panchayat Building Rules. She argued that when the ‘Act’ specifies the manner of determining the plinth area, no external device like the Building Rules can be taken into account. She contended that the appellant is thus impelling this Appeal in an experimental fashion; and prayed that it be, therefore, dismissed.

7. We have examined the essential facts involved and in particular, Ext.P5 order of the District Collector. It is without doubt that the District Collector has exercised his revisional power under the ‘Act’, to issue Ext.P5 order; and, in it, he has recorded that the plinth area has been determined to be 283.44 sq.m., based on a report he obtained from the Engineers of the Public Works Department (PWD), after recording measurements in the presence of the appellant. However, it is unnecessary to say that, even though the appellant may have been personally present, his involvement in the actual measuring, or in determining the plinth area, would only be as a witness; and it is unnecessary to specifically say that he would not have been in a position to direct the official actions.

8. The facts of this case makes an interesting presentation, namel