Allowed

Rosy v. District Collector

Kerala HC5 Apr 2013WP(C)/3118/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a revenue assessment order issued against her. Court found that the impugned order relied on a report submitted by the Tahasildar without disclosing its contents or affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Held, the order violated principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Petitioner directed to have her appeal reconsidered and orders passed within three months.

Rosy Vs District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/15TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 3118 of 2010 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

ROSY,W/O.JOSE,MAZHUVANCHERY HOUSE, EDANAD, CHOVVARA, ALUVA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM.

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE,ALUVA.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.A.SANJEETHA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-042013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WPC 3118/10

¶18

APPENDIX:

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶20

Ext.P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DT.30/7/2007 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT

¶21

Ext.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.28/2/09 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT

¶22

Ext.P3: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DT.19/5/09 FILED BY PETITIOER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶23

Ext.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.18/7/09 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT

¶24

Ext.P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.11/8/09 IN WPC 22803/09

¶25

Ext.P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.11/1/10 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT

//True copy//

PA TO JUDGE.

uj.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶30

- - - - W.P.(C).3118/2010

¶31

- - - - Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2013

¶32

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶35

Ext.P1 is an assessment order passed under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act against the petitioner and another person. That order was confirmed in Ext.P2 dismissing an appeal filed by her. Petitioner thereafter, filed Ext.P3 revision before the 1^st respondent. That revision was dismissed by Ext.P4 order which show that the reason for dismissal was the absence of the petitioner when the matter was taken up for hearing. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C).22803/2009, District Collector reconsidered the matter and again dismissed the appeal by Ext.P6 order. It is challenging Ext.P6, the writ petition is filed.

¶36

A reading of this order show that the appeal was heard on 21.10.2009. On the contentions raised by the petitioner, the District Collector called for a report from Tahasildar, who after enquiry, submitted the report on 30.12.2009. Relying on that report and without any further hearing, the District Collector passed Ext.P6 order on 11.1.2010. However, District Collector did not either serve a copy of the report on the petitioner or give the petitioner an opportunity to

¶37

W.P.(C).3118/10

¶38

¶39

make her submissions on the contents of the report after receiving the report dated 30.12.2009.

¶40

Placing reliance on the documents, which were not disclosed to the parties to the proceedings, has been held to be violation of principles of natural justice. If that be so, by relying on the report submitted on 30.12.2009 without disclosing its contents to the petitioner and passing Ext.P6 order to the prejudice of the petitioner, District Collector has violated the principles of natural justice.

¶41

For that reason, I set aside Ext.P6 and the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to reconsider Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶43

mrcs

¶44

/true copy/

Rosy v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rosy v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunnel Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd. Vs Chennai Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.

Amma Center for Diagnosis and Preventive Medicine (P0 Ltd. Vs Kims Hospital and Surgical Centre

R.Padmini Vs State of Kerala and Others

G.Ramachandran Nair Vs the Superintendent of Police

Lizy Sajeev Vs Intelligence Inspector

Stephen Bernard Vs the Commissioner