Judgment :- 1. Building is a beauteous concept. It has a positive content; a constructive direction; and a perfecting dimension. Small or big does not matter when it comes to building: a bird's nest, or a sky scraper. Many even build castles in the air! Laitham noted how in ancient Egypt people build huts for the living and pyramids for the dead. Around it much of sentiments and emotions centre around. Temples, churches and mosques have their spiritual halo. Deep emotions or disciplinary virtues give the building a greater significance: such as in the case of Taj where affection crystallised itself into a glorious beauty; such as in the Gothic Cloisters, which inspired Lord Atkin to coin that term 'cloistered virtue'. 2. Building techniques had varied very much depending on the clime and time. To the Chinese, who built the Great Wall, uses of stone instead of wood for the construction of the buildings in the reign of Asoka caused much wonder. Nero's palace is referred to as the most pretentious of all homes. Mansion, Lexicographers say only meant a place one lives in. 'So was residence, which splits into re, "block", and sedeo, "sit" making up 'residence' as a place where one sits back and takes it easy. Bungalow, the one or one-and-a-half story houses, derived from the Hindustani word 'bangla', meaning of "of Bengal". (which got into English in the 17th century) and is a contribution of East India architecture. (See 'Word Origins' by Wilfred Funk). The tax man did not spare the window, when English Window Tax way imposed. 3. In the realm of law, building activity brought in its wake many legal thoughts. Hudson's'Building Contract' and texts of that kind and the profuse case law of recent times reflect the pervasive nature of the inter-connection between Law and Building. 4. The administrators viewed building activity with added interest. Quite often, it was a good source of revenue. From the time the design was made, up to the time the construction was complete, the tax gathers revetted their eyes on the activities. 5. In Kerala, the Building Tax was initially imposed under an Ordinance, of 1974. It was replaced by the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, Act 7 of 1975. Its constitutionality was under serious challenge. The challenge was repelled by a Full Bench, though with a dissent. 5. In Kerala, the Building Tax was initially imposed under an Ordinance, of 1974. It was replaced by the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, Act 7 of 1975. Its constitutionality was under serious challenge. The challenge was repelled by a Full Bench, though with a dissent. Ultimately, the apex court upheld its validity in Ghouse & Co. v. State of Kerala, AIR 1980 SC. 271. 6. The 31-Sectioned Act, had a subordinate legislation in the form of 15 Rules. S.2(e) of the Act defines 'Building'. The charging section is S.S. The taxing authorities were those to be notified under S.4. Under the notifications, Tahsildars are the assessing authorities, and the Revenue Divisional Officers, the Appellate Authorities. The District Collector, by a specific statutory provision, S.13, got powers of revision. The District Court could exercise a limited jurisdiction when a reference was made to it under S.12. The Government too had revisional powers as indicated in S.16, and the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the references under S.3. 7. The writ petitioners were assessed to building tax. Though available, the appellate remedy was not availed of by them. They filed revision petitions instead, before the District Collector. The District Collector took the view that a revision is not maintainable, when the party has failed to appeal. 8. The orders are under challenge. Smt. Devakikutty appearing for the petitioner in O.P. 2538 of 1989 launched the aggression of arguments; counsel for the petitioner in O.P. 4429/89 adopted and supported them. Mrs.Molly Jacob, Government Pleader tenaciously attempted the resistance. 9. The writ petitions pose only a simple question. Can an aggrieved assessee choose between his remedies - an appeal under S.11 or a revision under S.13, the former before the R.D.O. and the latter before the Collector? 10. Sub-section (1) of these two sections, would call for greater attention while tackling this controversy. "Appeals 11(1). Any assessee objecting to the amount of building tax assessed under S.9 or denying his liability to be assessed under this Act or objecting to any order of the assessing authority under this Act may appeal to the appellate authority against the assessment or against such order; 13. "Appeals 11(1). Any assessee objecting to the amount of building tax assessed under S.9 or denying his liability to be assessed under this Act or objecting to any order of the assessing authority under this Act may appeal to the appellate authority against the assessment or against such order; 13. Power of Revision of the District Collector:-(1) The District Collector may, either "Suo mote" or on application by any person aggrieved, call for and examine the record of any order passed by the appellate authority or the assessing authority and may pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit: " 11. A simple dissection of S.13 would separate it into two parts, one where the Collector on his own takes up the revisional jurisdiction and the other where his jurisdiction is invoked by a desirous person, an aggrieved assessee. The revisional power of the Collector is available both as against the orders of the Appellate Authorities and the orders of the assessing authorities. 12. Some other provisions, although not strictly relevant for the consideration of the question, may be noted in passing. The second proviso introduces an embargo in the exercise of the revisional power in certain situations, such as when the period of thirty days specified for presentation of appeal has not expired; or when an appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority. There are some additional areas of prohibition for the revisional power such as against an order on the basis of a reference under S.12, and one when the order passed in suo motu jurisdiction beyond three months. 13. Many taxing and other enactments contain similar schemes of providing by way of remedies, an appeal and a revision. Taxation enactment, General statutes like those dealing with co-operation and education, and even Taxation enactments have somewhat similar schemes providing for a dischotomy of remedies. The Indian Tax Act, 1922 had provisions with closer similarity. The question whether with a wider and more liberal appellate forum, a revisional jurisdiction could co-exist, had also been considered from very early times, while construing such provisions. 14. On the basis of reasoning available on statutes in pari materia, it can be safely held that an assessee can invoke the powers of revision of the District Collector, without knocking at the doors of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revisional Authority has, unlike the appellate one, has only comparatively attenuated powers. 14. On the basis of reasoning available on statutes in pari materia, it can be safely held that an assessee can invoke the powers of revision of the District Collector, without knocking at the doors of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revisional Authority has, unlike the appellate one, has only comparatively attenuated powers. The question is not about the amplitude of the power, but about its very existence. The answer is: the power exists, the limitation in the exercise of the power notwithstanding. 15. Useful thoughts on this aspect were given by the Madras High Court, very many years back, in Sreenivasalu v. C.I. J., 1948 (16) ITR 341- AIR 1949 Madras 358. It is unnecessary to catalogue the various decisions which have adopted the reasoning and conclusion of that decision. Dhankaur v. State of Rajasthan decided in the context of the Rajasthan Agricultural Income Tax Act, is one of the later decisions upholding that logic. (1979) (120 ITR 158). A cognate provision in the Co-operative Societies Act was adverted to by a Division Bench of this Court, (Malimath C.J. and Sukumaran J.) in Thankappan v. Trivandrum Dt. Co-operative Bank Ltd., 1986 KLT 263. The following is an appropriate abstract from the observation of the Bench: "An examination of these provisions would reveal that the legislature had conferred two remedies on a person aggrieved by the award of an Arbitrator, the choice of which was entirely dependent upon the preference of the party." (emphasis supplied) 16. In the context of the statutory scheme of the Building Tax Act also, the same conclusion follows. 17. It is unnecessary to refer in detail to other decisions such as Haneefa v. State of Kerala, 1978 KLT.SN.30 rendered under the Kerala Education Rules, and Tessy Kuruvilla v. Agrl. I.T. Officer, 1984 KLT SN 74 (Case No. 121) rendered under the Agricultural Income Tax Act. 18. In the light of the above discussion, I quash the impugned orders passed by the District Collector. The revision petitions will be taken up afresh by the Collector, and disposed of on merits, in accordance with law., 19. Way back in 1987, Sreedharan J. took, a similar view but essentially based on concession. 18. In the light of the above discussion, I quash the impugned orders passed by the District Collector. The revision petitions will be taken up afresh by the Collector, and disposed of on merits, in accordance with law., 19. Way back in 1987, Sreedharan J. took, a similar view but essentially based on concession. (It is somewhat risky to follow in these days the decisions based on concessions.) That is the caution given by the Supreme Court, when Venkataramaiah J. speaking for the Court in Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., v. Government of Kerala, AIR 1986 S.G. 1541 observed: "concession is neither here nor there". (The Supreme Court gave in that case an interpretation, contrary to the one adopted by a Bench of this Court on the basis of concession). A vigilant Government Department, could have given useful guidance to subordinate functionaries on matters of such a general nature, so that much valuable time of the District administrative heads could have been spent on more useful purposes. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. I do not make any order as to costs.