Abdul Rehim, J:
The petitioner is in appeal against the judgment of the Single Bench dismissing the writ petition. Challenge was against Ext.P14 order through which the appeal filed before the 2nd respondent against the assessment of property tax was rejected for the reason that it can be entertained only if the amount assessed is paid. Exhibit P15 consequential demand under the revenue recovery proceedings was also under challenge. Learned Single Judge repelled challenges against Exts.P14 & P15, finding that the demand for payment of the tax assessed, as a pre-condition for entertaining the appeal, was perfectly in terms of Rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy and Appeal) Rules, 1996.
2. A further contention raised in the writ petition was that the panchayat is not entitled to revise the annual rental value already assessed for a period of 5 years, except in the case of renovation or addition, in view of Rule 6. This was also repelled by the learned Single Judge finding that it will not apply to a situation where Rule 7 is invoked. It is aggrieved by such findings this writ appeal is filed.
3. In I.A. No.551/2012 the appellant sought for a direction to consider ExtP11 appeal on merits, after paying the balance amount in respect of the reassessment, pending disposal of the appeal. On 23-07-2012 this court passed an interim order directing the appellant to remit Rs.12 lakhs within 2 weeks and directed the Secretary of the 1st respondent to place the appeal before the 2nd respondent for hearing on merits. The 2nd respondent was directed to decide the appeal without being influenced by the observations contained in the judgment impugned herein.
4. Along with a Memo filed by the counsel for the 1st respondent, dated 08-01-2013 a proceedings issued by the Secretary of the 1st respondent Panchayat (No.A-1618/2012 dated 04-01-2014) is produced. It is evident that the 2nd respondent had considered the appeal on the basis of the interim direction, on the appellant remitting the amount of Rs.12 lakhs. From the above said proceedings it is evident that the 2nd respondent had confirmed the revision of assessment after granting 5% reduction in the amount of tax assessed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, against the appellate order of the 2nd respondent, the appellant herein had already preferred revision petition before the Government. The appellant seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition, so that all the issues can be agitated before the revisional authority, untrammeled by any of the findings contained in the judgment of the Single Judge.
6. It is pertinent to note that, in the interim order dated 23-07-2012 this court had directed the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal without being influenced by any of the observations in the impugned judgment. But from the appellate order which is now produced, it is evident that the 2nd respondent had not gone into merits of the contention that the revision of annual rental value is not sustainable under Rule 6. However, since the matter is now pending adjudication before the revisional authority, it is only just and proper to permit the appellant to agitate all issues on merits before the said authority. Therefore it is only just and proper to permit the request for withdrawal of the writ petition.
7. Under the above mentioned circumstances this writ appeal is disposed of by permitting withdrawal of the writ petition, W.P (c) No.21936/2007. Consequently the impugned judgment will stand set aside. It is made clear that the appellant will be at liberty to pursue the revision petition if any filed against the impugned assessment which is modified in appeal, on the basis of all the contentions available under law.
Sd/-
K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
AMG True copy P.A to Judge