IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 35481 OF 2010(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ N.M. SAJU, S/O. MATHAI, AGED 43 YEARS, NADAMKUZHY HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PULLUVAZHY KARA, PULLUVAZY.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAYAMANGALAM RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PULLUVAZY.P.O., 683 555. 2. DEPUTY THAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR, 683 555. 3. THAHASILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR, 683 555. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, 683 534. 5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, 682 030. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35481 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Matter arises under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. According to the petitioner the building in question which is assessed under the provisions of the Act, is only a temporary structure, which will not fall within the description of 'Building' defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. On an earlier occasion, when a non speaking order of assessment was issued against the petitioner, he had approached this court and in Ext.P1 judgment this court directed the assessing authority to consider the matter afresh and issue a speaking order of assessment, after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. It is noticed that the assessing authority had confirmed the original assessment holding that the building in question is liable to be taxed as one coming within the description of 'Building' defined under Section 2(e). 2. Aggrieved by the assessment the petitioner had W.P.(C).35481/10-I -2- preferred statutory appeal which was dismissed through Ext.P3 order confirming the assessment. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner had preferred revision before the 5th respondent as per Ext.P4. The revision petition was dismissed through Ext.P5 order noting the defects that the revision petition was filed after the lapse of 4 months and that necessary court fee stamp was not affixed. It is also stated that the petitioner has not produced receipt showing payment of 50% of the amount as required under Section 13(4) of the Act. It is observed by the revisional authority that there is no provision in Section 13 of the Act for condoning delay occurred in filing the revision petition. 3. The rejection of the revision petition is on the basis of defects noted therein. Principles of natural justice requires that before rejecting the statutory revision petition, the petitioner ought to have been afforded with an opportunity to rectify those defects. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever put to notice about the defects as alleged. 4. It is noticed that the revisional authority had observed that there is no provision for condonation of delay under Section 13 of the Act. Under Section 13(3) of the Act, a revision petition should be filed before the expiry of 30 days from the date on W.P.(C).35481/10-I -3- which the order in question was communicated. It is settled law by this time that all the statutory authorities, who are conferred with appellate or revisional powers, have got inherent power to consider condonation of delay, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply in such cases, unless there is an express bar in condoning delay beyond a specified time limit. Under Section 13 of the KBT Act there is no express prohibition incorporated for condoning delay in filing the revision beyond any specified time limit. Therefore it is evident that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable in case of any revision petition filed under Section 13 and the revisional authority is vested with inherent power to consider the condonation of delay. 5. Under the above circumstances Ext.P5 order is hereby quashed. If the petitioner rectifies defects by filing proper condonation application and by producing proof regarding payment of 50% tax assessed (including amount already paid through Ext.P2 receipt) and further if he rectifies the defect of non affixure of proper court fee stamp, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, then the 5th respondent shall restore the revision application on its files and dispose of the same on merits, after affording an W.P.(C).35481/10-I -4- opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Needless to say that if the petitioner complies with the above conditions to rectify the defects within the time stipulated, further steps of recovery of the balance amount shall be kept in abeyance till the revision petition is disposed of. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb