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
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
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
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
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
