Shaffique, J.
This Review Petition is filed by the appellant in W.A. No.473 of 2010. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the review petitioner that this Court did not advert to the judgment in P.A. Kuttiyali Haji v. The District Collector, Malappuram and others in W.P.(C) No.22715 of 2007 which could not be brought to the notice of this Court, wherein the learned Single Judge made an observation that if the petitioner has no Chimmini, then the claim of firewood area, in the modern house is bogus. On this basis the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the existence of firewood area has to be considered. It is also contended that there is no proper measurement of the building in terms of the provisions of the Building Tax Act, 1975 and that the review petitioner was not under obligation to pay luxury tax.
2. We have perused the judgment of learned Single Judge mentioned above as well as the judgment under review. This Court had considered the question as to whether the kitchen area where the petitioner has stocked firewood as well can be extempted R.P. No. 778 of 2014 IN WA No. 473 of 2010 -:2:-
for the purpose of computing the plinth area of the building for paying building tax under the Act. We have come to the finding that if exemption is to be granted, the area is to be used for the purpose of storage of firewood. Merely for the reason that some firewood is stored in the kitchen area, the same would not become firewood storage area.
3. That apart, as far as the measurement of the building is concerned, in Ext.P12 the plinth area of the petitioner's building is shown as 291.82 M2. Hence we do not think that the petitioner is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under review.
Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion, there is no error apparent on the face of record to review the judgment. Hence the Review Petition is dismissed. However, we grant the petitioner three months time to pay the amount.
Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/14/10