Kerala High Court
P.M.K. Sherief vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 17 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 18667 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
P.M.K. SHERIEF
MANAGING PARTNER, SHADOW BUILDINGS LLP,
NEAR LIC OFFICE, PULIKKUNNU ROAD,
THALANGARA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD, PIN-671 122,
KERALA
BY
ADV.P.ABRAHAM CHERIAN
ADV.MUHSIN M.M.
ADV.AMANDA RUTH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KASARAGOD,
FIRST FLOOR, PORT OFFICE BUILDING,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
KASARAGOD-671 121.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
KASARAGOD TALUK, COURT ROAD,
KASARAGOD-671 123.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
W.P.(C) No.18667/21 -:2:-
BY DR.THUSHARA JAMES, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.18667/21 -:3:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.18667 of 2021
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2021
JUDGMENT
An order of assessment was passed against the petitioner on
30.01.2020 under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Challenging the said
assessment order, petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the 1 st
respondent. In preferring the appeal there was a delay of more than one
year. It is seen from the order impugned that the appeal was filed only in
February, 2021. The appellate authority by Ext.P6 order dated 12.03.2021
dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was belated. The
petitioner challenges the said order dismissing the appeal on the ground
of delay.
2. Writ petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation v. v. (2021 (2)
KHC 291), and contended that the period of limitation in all cases have
been extended by the aforestated decision. According to the petitioner,
Ext.P6 is thus liable to be set aside and the appellate authority is bound to
re-consider the appeal on merits.
W.P.(C) No.18667/21
3. I have heard Adv.Abraham Cherian P., the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Adv.Dr.Thushara James, learned Senior Government
Pleader on behalf of the respondents.
4. In the order impugned, the only reason stated for dismissing the
appeal is that the appeal was filed beyond the period stipulated in Section
11(3) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.
5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
aforestated reasoning of the appellate authority is contrary to the judgment
of the Apex Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation v.
[ILR 2020 (2) Ker.75]. In the above named case, the Apex Court had suo
motu taken cognizance of the situation faced by the litigants on account of
the pandemic and directed the extension of period of limitation under
various Statutes with effect from 15.03.2020 until further orders. In fact,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had, by order dated 08.03.2021 reported in In
Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation v. v. [2021 (2) KHC 291]
directed that the period of limitation in filing
petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings, irrespective of
the period of limitation prescribed under the general or special laws, shall
stand extended till 14.03.2021. The said extension of limitation, was in
fact, further extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated
08.03.2021 and again on 27.04.2021, which are in any case not relevant
W.P.(C) No.18667/21
for this case since those falls in the period after the appeal was filed.
6. Taking recourse to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
mentioned above, the appeal filed by the petitioner in February, 2021
cannot be regarded as belated. The period from 15.03.2020 till the date of
filing the appeal i.e.,February, 2021 is liable to be excluded while
calculating the limitation. So viewed, Ext.P6 order, which has hastily come
to a conclusion that the appeal has been filed belatedly is incorrect and is
contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. In view of the above, Ext.P6 is set aside. While setting aside
Ext.P6 order of the 1st respondent, I direct Ext.P4 appeal filed by the
petitioner before the 1st respondent in February, 2021 be treated as one
filed within time and also direct the said appeal to be considered and
disposed of on merits, as expeditiously as possible, after hearing the
parties.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
W.P.(C) No.18667/21
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18667/2021
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO
B.A NO 60/11-12 DATED 17.1.2012 ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY, KASARAGOD
MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF KASARAGOD
MUNICIPALITY DATED 21.5.2019
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.1.2020
BEARING NO D4/12527/19 ISSUED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED 6.2.2021
EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS 3,47,004/-
BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO KD
IS 1073/2021/D3 DATED 12.3.2021 OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT IN SUO MOTU WPC NO 3 OF
2020 DATED 23.3.2020 REPORTED IN ILR
2020(30 KERALA 75
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT IN SUO MOTU WPC NO 3 OF
2020 DATED 8.3.2021 REPORTED IN 2021 (2)
KHC 291
