IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 36140 of 2002(B)
1. P.M.APPUNNI PANICKER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KALAPADAN RAHAMATH, D/O. HAMZA,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER ( NO MEMO)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :06/03/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.
--------------------------------------------
OP.NO. 36140 of 2002
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order of the District Collector,
rejecting his appeal petition, as time barred. There existed a dispute
between the petitioner and the first respondent with respect to
payment of basic tax of 65 cents of property comprised in survey
No.42/5 of Valamboor Village. The second respondent Tahsildar after
adjudicating rival contentions, issued Ext.P4 order, holding that basic
tax could not be received from the first respondent or from the
petitioner unless there is a decision of a competent Civil Court with
respect to ownership of the property.
2. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, petitioner preferred appeal before the
Revenue Divisional Officer. But as per Ext.P5, the petitioner was
informed that the appropriate appellate authority is the District
Collector. Thereafter he filed appeal before the District Collector. But
through Ext.P6 order the appeal was rejected holding that it is not
filed within the time limit stipulated in Rule 12(ii) of the Kerala Land
Tax Rules. It is observed that the appellate authority is not
empowered to condone delay beyond the period of 90 days as per the
proviso to the said Rule. Since the impugned order of the Tahsildar
OP.36140/2002 2
was served on the petitioner on 23.10.1999, the District Collector
rejected the appeal, which was filed only on 1.8.2000.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that he had filed appeal
before the Revenue Divisional Officer, within the time stipulated under
Rule 12(ii) and it is only after a long lapse of time that the Revenue
Divisional Officer issued Ext.P5 notice. According to the petitioner, the
appeal need be considered as one filed before a wrong authority and
returned for presentation before the proper authority, who is the
District Collector.
4. As per Rule 12(ii) the appellate authority is empowered to
admit an appeal presented after the expiry of 30 days, if it is satisfied
that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the
said period. But the proviso to Rule 12(ii) insists that no appeal shall
be entertained after expiry of the period of 90 days of service of the
impugned order. In the instant case, the petitioner filed an appeal
before the Revenue Divisional Officer against Ext.P4 order of the
Tahsildar. Since there is no contrary evidence it can be presumed that
the appeal was filed within 30 days of service of the order impugned.
In Ext.P6 it is noted that the date of service of Ext.P4 order was
23.10.1999. But Ext.P5 notice rejecting the appeal issued by the
Revenue Divisional Officer is dated 20.6.2000. Therefore, it is clear
OP.36140/2002 3
that the matter was kept pending for a considerably long period in the
office of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Eventhough the filing of the
appeal before the District Collector was not a re-presentation of the
appeal in its strict sense, considering the facts stated above, I am
inclined to direct to treat the appeal filed before the District Collector
as a re-presentation of the appeal returned by the Revenue Divisional
Officer. But still, there arose a question as to whether the petitioner
had filed the appeal before the District Collector within 30 days of
Ext.P5 notice by which the Revenue Divisional Officer had intimated
that the appeal is not maintainable. Ext.P5 is dated 20.6.2000. From
Ext.P6 it is evident that the appeal petition was presented before the
District Collector only on 1.8.2000, which admittedly is beyond the
period of 30 days. But it is pointed out that since the delay is below 90
days, the District Collector can condone the same. It is for the
petitioner to explain the cause of such delay and to seek condonation
by filing a proper application.
5. In view of the above, I am inclined to quash Exts.P6 and I do
so. If the petitioner files a proper application before the District
Collector within one month from today, seeking condonation of the
delay occurred beyond the period of 30 days in presenting the appeal,
between 20.6.2000 (the date of Ext.P5 order) and 1.8.2000, the
OP.36140/2002 4
District Collector will consider the said application on its merits and will
take a decision regarding condonation of delay. Needless to say that
if the District Collector is inclined to condone the delay, then the appeal
need be entertained and disposed on merits, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the first respondent. The District Collector
will dispose of the petition and the appeal, if received, at the earliest,
at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of such
application. It goes without saying that if there is failure to file any
such application, Ext.P6 order will survive.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
Pmn/
OP.36140/2002 5