Kerala High Court
Blesson Abraham vs The Revenue Division Officer on 22 October, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
2024:KER:78385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 30TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 16429 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BLESSON ABRAHAM,
AGED 59 YEARS,
EETTIKALAYIL CHARITABLE TRUST, EETTIKALAYIL GOLDEN
TOWER, MARKET JUNCTION, TEMPLE ROAD, THIRUVALLA,
THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. MONCY JOHN,
(ADHAR NO. 8767 5297 5618) AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT
EDATHINETHU MEPPURATH, PULLOOPRAM P.O., ANGADI,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689674.
BY ADVS.
K.SASIKUMAR
S.ARAVIND
P.S.RAGHUKUMAR
ANITHA CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 691523.
2 TAHASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, REVENUE TOWER, REVENUE TOWER RD,
THIRUVALLA, KERALA, PIN - 689101.
BY SMT.JASMINE M M, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16429 OF 2024
2
2024:KER:78385
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging
Exts.P2 and P4 orders assessing building tax under the provisions
of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
1975 Act'). According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 order is
unsustainable in law, especially taking note of the law laid down by
this Court in HI-LITE Realtors (India) LLP (M/s.), Calicut v.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode and Others [2018(3) KHC
613] as also the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
Adbul Latheef V.S. v. Tahsildar [2023(7) KHC 492].
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that
remedy of the petitioner against Ext.P4 order of the 1 st Appellate
Authority is to file a Revision Petition before the District Collector
and there is no ground made out to show as to why the petitioner
must be allowed to challenge Exts.P2 and P4 in a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that Ext.P4 order was never served on the petitioner and
he came to know of Ext.P4 order only when Ext.P5 communication
WP(C) NO. 16429 OF 2024
2024:KER:78385
was issued by the Tahsildar calling upon the petitioner to remit the
amounts as per the original assessment. It is submitted that
immediately on receiving Ext.P5, the petitioner had approached
this Court by filing the above writ petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to file a Revision
Petition against Ext.P4 order under the provisions of Section 13 of
the 1975 Act provided such Revision Petition is filed within a period
of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment. I am inclined to permit the petitioner to now file a
Revision Petition against Ext.P4 on account of the fact that it is the
case of the petitioner that Ext.P4 order was never served on him
and he came to know of Ext.P4 order only when Ext.P5
communication was issued by the Tahsildar.
Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of
directing that if the petitioner were to file a Revision Petition
against Ext.P4 order, within a period of two weeks from the date of
WP(C) NO. 16429 OF 2024
2024:KER:78385
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, any recovery
proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 and P4 orders shall remain
suspended till a decision is taken by the District Collector
(Revisional Authority) in the Revision Petition to be filed by the
petitioner. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the matter and it will be open to the petitioner to raise
all contentions before the Revisional Authority.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
DK
WP(C) NO. 16429 OF 2024
2024:KER:78385
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16429/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
DATED 13-03-2004 EXECUTED BY THE
PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF MR. MONCY JOHN
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT
DATED 23-09-2016
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-10-
2016 IN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT NO. B9-
12393/15 OF 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01-11-
2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02-02-
2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED
IN FAVOUR GREGORY P. OOMMEN AND GEORGE
OOMMEN, THE OWNERS OF FLAT NO. A3 DATED
23-04-2014
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF THE OWNERS
OF THE RESPECTIVE APARTMENTS ALONG WITH
THE DATES OF REGISTRATION OF THE SALE
DEEDS AND THE DOCUMENT NUMBERS
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN HI-LITE
REALTORS (INDIA) LTD., (M/S) CALICUT
VS. REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER AND OTHER
REPORTED IN 2018 (3) KHC 613
