IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 36140 of 2002(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.M.APPUNNI PANICKER, S/O. P.GOVINDA PANICKER, AGED 80 YEARS, PARIYARATH HOUSE, POST VALAMBOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR..K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KALAPADAN RAHAMATH, D/O. HAMZA, THIRURKADU, POST VALAMBOOR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R2 & R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BASANT BALAJI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss O.P.NO.36140/2002 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 27/07/1988. EXT.P2: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 7/04/1999. EXT.P3: COPY OF DECREE IN O.S.NO.108/1986 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PERINTHALMANNA. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER NO.B1-5974/1996 DTD. 25/09/1999 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE R.D.O. PERINTHALMANNA DTD. 20/06/2000 TO THE PETITIONER & HER COUNSEL. EXT.P6: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 9/10/2002 TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss 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