Salitha Susan Thomas Vs State of Kerala

¶1

2025:KER:28770

¶2

WA NO. 609 OF 2025

¶3

1

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶7

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶9

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶10

WA NO. 609 OF 2025

¶11

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.10314

¶12

OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶13

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶14

SALITHA SUSAN THOMAS
AGED 46 YEARS

¶15

D/O THOMAS DANIEL, RESIDING AT AIKOTTU
PROVIDENCE, EDASSERYMALA MURI, ARANMULA WEST,
ARANMULA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST, PIN - 689533

¶16

BY ADV ADARSH S.

¶17

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶18

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695001

¶19

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR 2ND FLOOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645

¶20

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MG ROAD, PARASS LA, ADOOR, PIN - 691523

¶21

2025:KER:28770

¶22

WA NO. 609 OF 2025

¶23

2

¶24

4 THE THAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE KOZHENCHERRY, GROUND FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, KOZHENCHERRY, SH7, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645

¶25

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MINI CIVIL STATION ARANMULA, EDAYARANMULA, PIN - 689533

¶26

OTHER PRESENT:

¶27

SR GP SRI.V.K SHAMSUDHEEN

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WA NO.609OF 2025

¶30

3

¶31

2025:KER:28770

¶32

------------------------------W.A.No.609 of 2025

¶33

----------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2025

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Easwaran S., J.

¶36

The intra-court appeal is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of WP(C) No.10314/2025 by the learned single Judge vide judgment dated 18.3.2025.

¶37

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal is as follows:

¶38

The petitioner was assessed by the Tahsildar for luxury tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Through her father and the power of attorney holder, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 2^nd respondent, District Collector, who by order dated 7.3.2018 dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner asserted in the writ petition that aggrieved by the order, she preferred a revision petition before the 1^st respondent-Government, but the Government by order dated 27.7.2018 rejected the revision. Thereafter, the petitioner sought redressal of the grievance by filing O.S No.385/2019 before the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta. However, the suit was subsequently

¶39

2025:KER:28770

¶40

WA NO. 609 OF 2025

¶41

4

¶42

dismissed for default due to the absence of the petitioner's counsel and in the meantime, since the petitioner's father expired, she was not aware of the proceedings undertaken by him. However, immediately on coming to know about the consequential action for recovery taken by the Panchayat, she approached this Court by preferring the writ petition. The learned single Judge who considered the writ petition found that the assessment order passed by the Panchayat had attained finality after the dismissal of the revision petition by the Government, since the petitioner did not take any steps thereafter to challenge the proceedings. Therefore, the assessment in question having become final, the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the measures taken by the authority for recovery. It was further ordered that since the assessment of the luxury tax is on year-to-year basis and the earlier assessment cannot remain forever, the petitioner will be at liberty to seek fresh assessment in future years, for redressal of her grievance, if any.

¶43

Heard Sri.Adarsh S., the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner, and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶44

On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the

¶45

bar, we find that the petitioner has not made out any case warranting interference with the judgment of the learned single Judge. Admittedly,

¶46

2025:KER:28770

¶47

WA NO. 609 OF 2025

¶48

5

¶49

the assessment order issued against the petitioner has become final consequent upon the dismissal of the revision petition by the 1^st respondent-State. It must be noted that the dismissal of the revision petition as early as in the year 2018 and for seven years, the petitioner did not chose to challenge the order of the Government dismissing the revision petition. From the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, we find that neither the assessment order nor the appellate or revisional order has been questioned in the writ petition. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in declining to interfere with the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. In as much as the liberty has been granted by the learned single Judge to the petitioner to raise any grievance in future, since the assessment of building tax is year-to-year basis, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned in the appeal.

¶50

The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

EASWARAN S. JUDGE