The petitioner owned an extent of 486.63 Acres of land. It is his contention that out of the said area, 100 Acres was notified as Ecologically Fragile lands by way of Ext.P1 notification. The grievance in the writ petition is against Exts.P8 and P9 notices that have been issued under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of plantation tax dues for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2009- 2010. It is the case of the petitioner that for the assessment year 2008-2009, he had submitted returns showing the actual extent on which plantation tax was due and that the actual extent of land was lower than the aggregate extent of land held by him, for the purposes of the Act. Apparently, by Ext.P5 provisional assessment order for the year 2008-2009, the assessment was completed by overlooking the contention of the petitioner with regard to the actual extent of land held. The petitioner would point out that he has filed Ext.P6 representation before the 1st respondent pointing out these anomalies and requesting him for an assessment, based on the actual extent of land held by him.
2. I have heard Sri.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel W.P.(C).NO.13721 OF 2010 2 appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that insofar as the petitioner has disputed the actual extent of land that can be taken for the purposes of assessment under the Kerala Plantation Tax Act, it is incumbent upon the respondent to first determine the taxable extent of land before proceeding to finalise an assessment under the Act. Ext.P6 has been filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. A perusal of Ext.P6 would indicate that it is the specific case of the petitioner that it has a yielding area of 264.47 Acres only, as against the figure of 486.68 Acres taken by the respondents for the purposes of assessment under the Plantation Tax Act. As this is the matter that needs to be ascertained prior to the levy of tax, I direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation of the petitioner and pass fresh assessment orders for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009- 2010, after hearing the petitioner and perusing the documents that he produces to substantiate his contention with regard to the actual extent of plantation held by him. To enable the 1st respondent to do so, I quash Ext.P5 order as also Exts.P8 and P9 notices. The 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed above within a W.P.(C).NO.13721 OF 2010 3 period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns W.P.(C).NO.13721 OF 2010 4