Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38760/2010 of BALAN P. NAIR Vs THE TAHSILDAR AND ANOTHER on 31 December 2010
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38760 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BALAN P.NAIR, PROPRIETOR, KVR CARS, NH 17, BYE PASS, KANHANGAD SOUTH,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932
WP(C).No. 38760 of 2010(T)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
BALAN P.NAIR, PROPRIETOR, KVR CARS,
NH 17, BYE PASS, KANHANGAD SOUTH, ARANGADI.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG,
KANHANGAD-671315.
2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD-671315.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANHANGAD-671315.
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.SURENDRAMOHAN, J.
---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 38760 of 2010
---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the owner of a building which is assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building TaxAct, 1978. According to the petitioner the tax assessed is exorbitant. He is also entitled to exemption in respect ofsubstantial portions of the building. Therefore thepetitioner has challenged Ext.P2 assessment order beforethe appellate authority under the Act. The said appeal,Ext.P3, is submitted before the 2[nd] respondent. Alongwith Ext.P3, the petitioner has also submitted Exts.P4 andP5 applications for stay of recovery of the tax that hasbeen assessed.
2. According to the petitioner he has paid the firstinstalment of the tax assessed. Therefore, he is entitled toa stay of recovery of the balance amount of tax, pendingfinal disposal of Ext.P3 appeal. Though Exts.P4 and P5stay petitions have been filed he complains that no orders WP (C) No. 38760 of 2010
2
have been passed thereon till date. In the meantime heapprehends that the tax assessed would be recoveredfrom him by initiating coercive action. Therefore he hasfiled this writ petition, seeking necessary reliefs.
3. Since Exts. P4 and P5 applications for stay are pending before the 2[nd] respondent, I do not think itnecessary to consider the contentions of the petitioner onthe merits. It is sufficient that Exts. P4 and P5 aredirected to be disposed of expeditiously.
4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition isdisposed of directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P5 applications for stay and to pass appropriateorders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiouslyas possible, at any rate within a period of one month fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this judgement.
K.SURENDRAMOHAN,
JUDGE.