IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32864 of 2009(C)
1. FR.MARIADAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR,
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
4. THAHSILDAR, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKALPETTA
For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :17/11/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.32864 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P11 order issued by the
revisional authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975,
wherein Ext.P10 petition submitted seeking restoration of the
revision petition is rejected. Against the assessment of Building
Tax, the petitioner had filed appeal before the Revenue
Divisional Officer and during pendency of that appeal, the
petitioner had remitted 25% of the tax assessed. Ext.P8 is the
receipt evidencing such payment. The revision petition against
the order in appeal was filed during October 2008. According to
the petitioner he had remitted another 25% of the amount on
7.11.2008 as evidenced by Ext.P7 receipt. But the revisional
authority without noticing such remittance had rejected the
revision petition as evidenced by Ext.P9 dt. 6.3.2009. Therefore
the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 interim application seeking
restoration of the appeal pointing out that 50% of the tax amount
assessed, which is pre-requisite for considering the revision, has
already been paid. But through Ext.P11 that petition was
dismissed holding that the revision petition once dismissed could
W.P.(C).32864/09-C 2
not be considered again and further alleging that there is delay
in filing Ext.P10.
2. It is evident from the facts stated above that Ext.P9
order rejecting the revision petition was happened to be issued
only because the remittance made through Ext.P7 was not
noticed. Therefore it is evident that there was proper
compliance of the pre-requisite condition of deposit of tax, for
entertaining the revision petition.
3. Under the above circumstances Ext.P9 and P11 orders
are hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent revisional authority is
directed to take back Ext.P6 revision petition and to consider
and dispose of the same after affording an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner as early as possible.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb