This writ challenge from a Grama Panchayat against a Tribunal order dismissing a limitation plea in a property tax recovery matter was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal’s finding on facts and law.
Writ petition dismissed, Tribunal order confirmed, and petitioner directed to comply with Tribunal directions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/10TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 424 of 2010 (C)
PETITIONER(S) :
THE KOZHUVANAL GRAMA PANCHAYTH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHUVANAL P.O., PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA
RESPONDENT(S) :
MR.M.A.JOSE, MYLADIYIL HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL P.O., PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 424 of 2010 (C)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1: PETITIONER HAS PASSED THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2002.
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.07.2004 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3: RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DISPATCH REGISTER.
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.06.2008.
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.08.2008.
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01.09.2004.
EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.09.2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 22.09.2008.
EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.12.2008.
EXHIBIT P12: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.01.2009.
EXHIBIT P13: COPY OF THE RR DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.01.2009.
EXHIBIT P14: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.08.2009.
EXHIBIT P15: COPY OF THE DECISION NO.1 DATED 11.08.2009.
EXHIBIT P16: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2009.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE PETITIONER DATED 10.10.2000. EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PETITIONER DATED 10.10.2002.
EXHIBIT R1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM DATED 25.03.2008.
WP(C).No. 424 of 2010 (C)
EXHIBIT R1(D): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL SERVED TO THIS RESPONDENT ON SEPTEMBER, 2008 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PETITIONER.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
Devan Ramachandran, J.
W.P.(C)No.424 of 2010 C
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Local Self Government Institution, who has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P16 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram ('the Tribunal' for short).
WPC 424/10
2
petitioner before it is liable to pay only the arrears for the period prior to 17.06.2009, being the date of demand, thus holding the rest of the claim in the demand as being barred by limitation. The Panchayat was then directed to refund Rs.35,444/- being the amount recovered pursuant to the demand.
3
WPC 424/10
had resources to honour such demand or whether any action was taken for recovery at the relevant time.
4
WPC 424/10
impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition.
counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
WPC 424/10
5
notice on 17.06.2009 claiming an amount of Rs.37,590/as arrears for the period from 2001 to 2008 and adjusting the amount paid earlier by the petitioner. The Tribunal has recorded that the petitioner had no other option but to make payment, so as to comply with the requirement under Section 276(7) of the Act and that it was only in such circumstances that the petitioner had made the payment. The Tribunal thus concluded that the major portion of the amount claimed, as per notice dated 17.06.2009, was barred by limitation and that only the amounts relating to three years prior to 17.06.2009 could have been recovered. However, it was found that instead of doing this, the Secretary of the Panchayat issued orders allowing vacancy remission with respect to 2½ years of the period during 2000-03, when such claim in any case was barred by limitation.
vociferously that the Panchayat was unable to process the
WPC 424/10 6
property tax against the respondent because the respondent had caused misrepresentation. According to him, even though the respondent had applied for vacancy remission for the entire period, on the ground that the building was not occupied under tenancy, the fact is that the building was actually let out and, according to the learned counsel, therefore, this amounts to fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the respondent. Even though this submission has not been seen to have made before the Tribunal specifically, he maintains that since the Tribunal had seen the entire file, it has to be presumed that the Tribunal was aware of all these facts. I am completely unable to countenance this argument. It is true that the Tribunal, in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, has recorded that the decision was taken in appeal, forming pages 123 to 128 of the file produced by the petitioner. It does not, however, say in any manner that the respondent's application for remission, as is now
WPC 424/10
7
contended on behalf of the Panchayat, was descernible from the said file. Similarly, the Tribunal has also examined pages 123 to 128 of the same file, which was a copy of the decision of the Panchayat allowing remission and the Tribunal found that the Panchayat had only granted vacancy remission of 50% for the second half of 2000-01 and the second half of 2002-03. Obviously, the Tribunal had gone through the papers in detail but had not been asked to adjudicate as to whether the respondent's claim for remission was proper or otherwise. In fact, there is nothing on record to explain as to why the respondent's property was never assessed for the period from 2000-01/ 2008-09 except for a bald statement made at the Bar that this was on account of the application made by the respondent for remission. I am unable to accept this statement on its face because the Tribunal has found, in Exhibit P16 order, that the case of the Panchayat that applications were submitted only in
8
WPC 424/10
the year 2008 is incorrect and based on wrong facts.
In the result, this writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed confirming Exhibit P16 order
WPC 424/10
9
of the Tribunal and direct the petitioner to comply with the directions contained therein forthwith.
Devan Ramachandran, Judge
tkv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the demand for property tax was barred by limitation.
Whether the Tribunal acted equitably and correctly in confirming its order despite the petitioner’s appeal.
THE KOZHUVANAL GRAMA PANCHAYTH
MR.M.A.JOSE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
