Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.P. ABDU RAHIMAN versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.P. ABDU RAHIMAN v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 15917 of 2003(T) [2006] RD-KL 1688 (21 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 15917 of 2003(T)

1. K.P.ABDU RAHIMAN, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR,

4. TAHSILDAR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :21/11/2006

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C).No.15917 OF 2003

Dated this the 21th day of November, 2006



J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act. According to him, he along with his four brothers had purchased 30 cents of property as per Ext.P1 deed and effected construction by meeting the expenses for the construction separately. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to have a separate assessment. The four other brothers are not on the party array. It is seen from Ext.P7 order passed by the Collector that the petitioner did not produce any documents to establish his claim regarding the expenditure thus met individually by his brothers. The petitioner prays for an opportunity in view of the decision of this court reported in P.P.Varghese v. The Thahsildar [2006(1) KLJ 749] to furnish sufficient material along with his brothers. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: In the event of the petitioner along with his four other brothers referred to Exts.P1 and P2 appear before the 2nd O.P.No.15917/2003 :2: respondent District Collector and produce the required materials to establish the case of separate expenditure for the construction, the matter will be duly considered by the 2nd respondent and appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law will be passed within another three months, untrammelled by the stand taken in Ext.P8. The parties will approach the District Collector as above, within a period of one month from today. The further proceedings for recovery shall be deferred for the said period of four months.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

ps O.P.No.15917/2003 :3:

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.No.15917/2003

JUDGMENT

21th November, 2006


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.