The High Court will not interfere with factual determinations made by statutory authorities, such as the assessment of building plinth area based on physical inspection, unless there is gross illegality or a failure to comply with statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are the joint owners of a residential building complex comprising 13 building numbers (24/414 to 426) situated in Ward No. 24 of the Sultan Bathery Municipality. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against the assessment of the building for the purpose of Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The construction of the building was completed in the year 2009-10, and the building was subjected to tax, showing the total plinth areas as 388 Square Meters. However, subsequently, as per Ext.P3, a demand for additional tax was made, showing plinth area as 725.16 Square Meters.

2. Challenging Ext.P3, the petitioners submitted a statutory appeal before the 2^nd respondent, the Sub Collector Mananthavadi, but without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners, the said appeal was rejected as per Ext.P4. Even though the petitioners submitted a revision petition before the District Collector, as evidenced by Ext.P5, the same was rejected as per Ext.P6 confirming the impugned orders. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioners in such circumstances.

3. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, as far as the assessment of the building is concerned, it is already completed in the year 2009-10 and there is no cause of action for subjecting the building to a further assessment. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have not carried out any additional constructions and what they have done is to install a sheeted roof, which is not assessable for tax.

4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, brought to the attention of this Court, the specific findings contained in the impugned orders, particularly, Exts.P4 and P6, which are the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority respectively. By relying upon the findings therein it is contented that, the appeal and revision petition submitted by the petitioners were rejected after specifically entering in a finding based on the measurement of the building, where it was found that the total plinth area of the building is 725.16 Square Meters. Therefore, no interference is warranted, points out the learned Government Pleader.

5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4, and the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent, I find no justifiable reasons to interfere with the orders passed. As far as the findings entered into in Exts.P4 and P6 are concerned, it is to be noted that, the same were based on factual analysis as to the total plinth area available in the building. The said findings were based on the physical inspection conducted by the competent authority. It is discernible from the records that, the Deputy Collector had conducted an inspection and found that the total plinth area was 725.16 Square Meters. Since the finding regarding the plinth area available is a pure question of fact, and the said question has been settled by the statutory authorities consistently, based on the physical inspection conducted by the competent authority, I do not find any scope for further challenge against the same. The petitioners had already exhausted all the statutory remedies and interference in the orders passed by such statutory authorities, can be made by this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, only in cases where there is gross illegality in the order passed and there is failure in complying with the statutory stipulations relevant to the transactions. As far as the contentions raised by the petitioners in this case are concerned, those are relating to