Pushpamma vs The State Of Kerala

Kerala High Court

Pushpamma vs The State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                         WP(C) NO. 8549 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:

    1       PUSHPAMMA, AGED 58 YEARS
            W/O.THANKACHAN, KATTAKKAYAM HOUSE, CHALAKUDY DESOM,
            KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,
             CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
    2       THANKACHAN, AGED 60 YEARS
            S/O.ANTONY, KATTAKKAYAM HOUSE,
             CHALAKUDY DESOM, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,
            CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
    3       ANTONY, AGED 35 YEARS
            S/O.THANKACHAN, KATTAKKAYAM HOUSE,
            CHALAKUDY DESOM, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,
             CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
    4       THOMAS, AGED 63 YEARS
            S/O.THOMAS, PARANILAM HOUSE,
             CHALAKUDY DESOM, KIZHAKKEE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,
            CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
    5       MERCY, AGED 61 YEARS
            W/O.THOMAS, PARANILAM HOUSE,
             CHALAKUDY DESOM, KIZHAKKEE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,
            CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
    6       JACOB, AGED 36 YEARS
            S/O.THOMAS, PARANILAM HOUSE,
            CHALAKUDY DESOM, KIZHAKKEE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,
            CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
            BY ADVS.
            ARUN ASHOK
            SMT.NEENA JAMES


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       THE STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
             REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001
    2       DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
            COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE,
             THRISSUR, PIN-680003
    3       REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
            CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA,
             THRISSUR, PIN-680125
 WP(C) NO. 8549 OF 2020          2



    4     ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND TAHSILDAR,
          CHALAKUDY TALUK OFFICE,
          MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL COMPLEX, CHALAKUDY,
           THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680307
    5     VILLAGE OFFICER
          KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR PIN-680307



          SMT THUSHARA JAMES (SR GP)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 8549 OF 2020              3



                                 JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P9 order of the District Collector, Thrissur (the 2 nd respondent in the writ petition), dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners, challenging the determination of building tax payable by the petitioners. Ext.P3 is the demand notice assessing the building tax payable by the petitioners issued by the Tahsildar, Chalakudy (the 4th respondent). Ext.P6 is the order dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda. The revision petition filed by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent under Section 13 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 was filed with a delay of 80 days. As noted above, the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P9 order rejected the revision petition, finding no reason to condone the delay of 80 days in filing the revision petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there was sufficient justification for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition. It is submitted that the 2 nd respondent ought not to have taken such a hypertechnical view in the matter of condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the WP(C) NO. 8549 OF 2020 4 revision petition. It is submitted that the failure to condone the delay has caused substantial prejudice to the petitioners and therefore, Ext.P9 order may be set aside and the Revisional Authority may be directed to consider Ext.P7 revision petition on merits, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

3. Learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that there is absolutely no illegality in Ext.P9 order of the 2 nd respondent. It is submitted that a reading of Ext.P8 [petition seeking condonation of delay of 80 days] would show that no sufficient cause had been shown by the petitioners for condoning the delay. It is submitted that though it is not the law that every days delay must be explained, the petitioners were bound to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and on failure to show sufficient cause, the delay petition and consequently the revision petition were dismissed by the 2 nd respondent.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that Ext.P9 order is WP(C) NO. 8549 OF 2020 5 liable to be set aside. A reading of Ext.P8 application for condonation of delay will show that 50% of the amount assessed had already been paid by the petitioners. It was stated in Ext.P8 that the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority was received on 07.03.2019 and due to some unforeseen engagements and family obligations, the petitioners could not take necessary steps to file the revision petition within the statutory period. It is further stated in Ext.P8 that it is under such circumstances, there occurred a delay of 80 days in filing the revision petition. Since the delay involved was only 80 days, I am of the view that sufficient cause had been shown for condoning the delay and the Revisional Authority ought to have condoned the delay and considered the delay petition on merits.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 order of the 2nd respondent (Revisional Authority) is quashed. Ext.P7 revision petition is restored to the file of the 2 nd respondent. In the light of the finding in this judgment, the 2 nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders condoning the delay in filing the revision petition and shall proceed to hear Ext.P7 revision petition on merits, after affording an opportunity of WP(C) NO. 8549 OF 2020 6 hearing to the petitioners or their authorised representative. The petitioners or their authorised representative shall appear before the 2nd respondent at 11.00 A.M on 31.05.2024 and thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall proceed to dispose of the revision petition, in accordance with the law, after affording to the petitioners or their authorised representative an opportunity of being heard.

The writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt WP(C) NO. 8549 OF 2020 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8549/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 18.04.2017 EXHIBIT P2 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY DATED 15.12.2018 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.03.2018 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.06.2018 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.06.2019 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2019 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 27.06.2019 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION FILED ALONG WITH THE REVISION PETITION DATED 27.06.2019 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2020