Thappi Abdullakutty Haji, Vs Olavanna Grama Panchayat, Represented by Secretary

¶1

2025:KER:31115

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23603 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

THAPPI ABDULLAKUTTY HAJI,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.ABOOACKER HAJI,
THAPPIS HOUSE, PALATHINGAL (H),
PANTHEERANKAVU P.O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673019

¶7

BY ADVS.
DILEEP VARGHESE
N.RAYNOLD FERNANDEZ
TESMY VARGHEESE

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1OLAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
OLAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
GURUVAYURAPPAN COLLEGE P.O, MATHARA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673014

¶10

BY ADVS.
VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN
T.M.KHALID
K.P.SUSMITHA

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P.(C). No.23603 of 2024

¶13

-:2:-

¶14

2025:KER:31115

¶15

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶16

W.P.(C). No.23603 of 2024

¶17

Dated this the 9^th day of April, 2025

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent to receive property tax due under Exhibit-P1(a) to P1(y) and also to restrain initiating any coercive steps for realising the said amounts.

¶20

Petitioner is the co-owner of a multi-storeyed building called ‘Thappi Arcade’. Exhibit-P1(a) to P1(y) are recovery demand notices dated 06.04.2024, proposing to recover property tax on building numbers from 1353/V to 1365/V and 1366/V to 1377/V for the first and second half of 2023. Though petitioner initially requested for some time to clear the arrears of property tax dues atleast till 05.06.2024, respondent initiated steps for realising the said tax. In the meantime, petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.2,90,003/- on 20.05.2024, which was refused to be accepted by the Secretary of the Panchayat without any reason. It is in such circumstances that petitioner has approached this Court through this writ petition.

¶21

When the case came up for consideration on 01.07.2024, an interim direction was issued, staying the recovery proceedings, on condition that petitioner remits an amount of R.2,90,003/- within ten days. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said amount has already been deposited and the stay has been in force till

¶22

W.P.(C). No.23603 of 2024

¶23

2025:KER:31115

¶24

-:3:-

¶25

now.

¶26

In the meantime, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent pointing out that the property tax relates to the financial year 2023-24, and petitioner has to pay 50% of the compounding fee and other penal charges as per Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’), which was not covered by the cheque handed over by the petitioner. It is further stated that the property tax due for the year 2023-24 is Rs.2,70,341/- as on 31.03.2024, apart from fine, notice fee, warrant fee and penalty totalling to Rs.1,68,979/- (as of September, 2024). Thus, the total dues of the petitioner is stated to be Rs.4,36,320/-, and after deducting Rs.2,90,003/- from the total dues, petitioner has to pay a balance of Rs.1,46,317/-. According to the respondent, writ petitioner has intentionally suppressed the penal provisions from this Court and has approached this Court with unclean hands. Respondent further pleads that the petitioner attempted to escape from the liability to pay the compounding fee, fine and other dues by handing over a cheque for an amount excluding the aforesaid payment.

¶27

5 . I have heard Sri. Dileeep Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt. K. P. Susmitha, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on 26.03.2025 and posted it today for further hearing.

¶28

The compounding fee payable as per the Kerala Panchayat

¶29

W.P.(C). No.23603 of 2024

¶30

2025:KER:31115

¶31

-:4:-

¶32

Raj Compounding of Offences Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the Rules’) stipulates certain specific provisions under which compounding fee can be charged. Three types of compounding is stipulated in the Rules. The first is the compounding by the Secretary with the permission of the President, by payment of 50% of the fine prescribed for such offence under the Act. The second stage is where compounding can be carried out after obtaining permission from the court by crediting the amount into the revenue receipts of the Panchayat, and the third category is where the offence can be compounded without permission of the court by payment of the amount due plus 50% of the amount. The latter two categories arise in situations where the prosecution has already been initiated, while the first category arises where the prosecution has not yet been launched, but the offence can be presumed to have been committed.

¶33

In the instant case, concededly, no prosecution has been launched. Therefore, if at all there is any provision for compounding, it can only be under Rule 3 of the Rules. As per the said Rule, the payment made for compounding is only 50% of the fine prescribed for the offence under the Act.

¶34

In this context, it is relevant to mention that the compounding of an offence under the Rules is confined to certain specific provisions as mentioned in the Schedule to the Rules. The respondents have not been able to point out any specific provision

¶35

W.P.(C). No.23603 of 2024

¶36

2025:KER:31115

¶37

-:5:-

¶38

which is attracted except for Section 240 of the Act, which deals with failure to comply with any notice, requisition or order under Section 240(3) of the Act. Even if petitioner can be stated to have committed an offence under Section 240(3), still, compounding fee payable can at the most be Rs.250/-, which is 50% of the fine stipulated in the Schedule.

¶39

In such a view of the matter, the conduct of the respondent in refusing to accept the tax of Rs.2,90,003/- offered by the petitioner is totally unwarranted and without authority. It is evident that petitioner had offered much more than what he was actually liable to pay.

¶40

Be that as it may, since petitioner has already paid, pursuant to an interim order of this Court Rs.2,90,003/-, no further amounts are liable to be paid under the impugned demand notices. Hence, no coercive steps of any nature can be initiated against the petitioner for recovery of property tax pursuant to Exhibit-P1(a) to P1(y).

¶41

Petitioner if eligible for refund of any amount, will be entitled to seek recourse to appropriate remedies, in accordance with law.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶45

Jka/09.04.25.

¶46

W.P.(C). No.23603 of 2024

¶47

-:6:-

¶48

2025:KER:31115

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23603/2024

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit P1(a)to (y) TRUE COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE DATED 06.04.2024 FOR RECOVERY OF PROPERTY TAX ON NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING NUMBERS 1353/V TO 1365/V AND 13567/V TO 1377/V (24 NUMBERS) FOR FIRST AND SECOND HALF OF 2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER (24 NO'S)

¶52

Exhibit P2

¶53

TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY PETITIONER
TO RESPONDENT DATED 08.05.2024

¶54

Exhibit P3

¶55

TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT FOR EXHIBIT P2

¶56

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS

¶57

`COPY` `OF` `THE`	`LETTER`	`NO.`
`400997/PTAL11/GPO/2024/`	`5664/(1)`	`ISSUED`
`BY THE SECRETARY,`	`OLAVANNA`	`GRAMA`
`PANCHAYATH TO THE WRIT`	`PETITIONER`	`DATED`
`28.6.2024`

Thappi Abdullakutty Haji, v. Olavanna Grama Panchayat, Represented by Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thappi Abdullakutty Haji, v. Olavanna Grama Panchayat, Represented by Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paravur Town Merchants’ Association Vs State of Kerala

Biju Mon P.M Vs State of Kerala

Rafeek .B Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

Rejitha Kasim Vs the Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer

Sister Superior, St. Vincent De Paul Convent, Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation

Sen Bhaskaran, Vs Corporation of Cochin