Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAMES JACOB, S/O.CHACKO, MANAGING versus THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL (ASSESSING

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JAMES JACOB, S/O.CHACKO, MANAGING v. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL (ASSESSING - WP(C) No. 9247 of 2004(A) [2007] RD-KL 5768 (21 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 9247 of 2004(A)

1. JAMES JACOB, S/O.CHACKO, MANAGING
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL (ASSESSING
... Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA.

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :21/03/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C) No.9247 of 2004 Dated 21st March, 2007.

J U D G M E N T

Proceedings under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act are under challenge in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the building though initially proposed to be constructed by one person, the same was found impossible and hence an agreement was entered into as per Ext.P1 for the completion of the construction of the building and thus for all purposes, it is a building constructed as per the agreement. It appears, the District Collector refused to look into the agreement since the original of the same was not produced. It is also stated in the order that the petitioner did not make available the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made available the original of the agreement for perusal. I do not think that this Court should go into the disputed questions of fact involved in the case because these documents are to be made available before the District Collector. I quash Ext.P8. There will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the matter afresh, advert to the contentions taken by the petitioner referring to the materials and WP NO.9247/04 2 if necessary, conduct appropriate enquiry and pass orders in the matter. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. There shall be no recovery till such time. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J

O.P.No. of 2002

J U D G M E N T

Dated 21st March, 2007.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.