W.P.(C).No.13462 of 2022 1 2025:KER:11764 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 13462 OF 2022 PETITIONER: JOY KOLLANUR LUISE AGED 57 YEARS S/O LUISE, KOLLANUR HOUSE, 18/1/1454, PUTHIYARA P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN. BY ADVS. R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) G.RAJAGOPAL (KUMMANAM) RESPONDENTS: 1 TAHSILDAR KOZHIKODE, PIN-673020. 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOZHIKODE, PIN-673020. 3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673020. 4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. OTHER PRESENT: GP- ARUN AJAY SHANKAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.13462 of 2022 2 2025:KER:11764 VIJU ABRAHAM, J. -------------------- W.P.(C).No.13462 of 2022 -------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent and a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P1 and P2 in accordance with law. 2. It is averred that the petitioner has constructed a commercial building in the property owned and possessed by him in Survey No.44/6 of Chevayoor Village, Kozhikode Corporation and the 1st respondent has assessed an amount of Rs.25,87,400/- towards building tax under Section 9 of the Kerala Building Tax Act,1976 as per Ext.P1. The specific case of the petitioner is that though the construction of the building was completed in February, 2020, the petitioner could apply for completion certificate only on 7.7.2020 because of the various restrictions imposed by the Government W.P.(C).No.13462 of 2022 3 2025:KER:11764 due to Covid pandemic. Though an appeal was preferred before the 2nd respondent, the same was rejected by Ext.P2. Challenging Ext.P2 petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 3rd respondent. Petitioner contended that initially the same was preferred before the 2nd respondent itself due to an inadvertent mistake. On realizing the mistake, a fresh revision petition was filed before the 3rd respondent on 24.12.2021. But in the meanwhile there occurred a delay of 4 days in preferring the revision petition. Thereupon, petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay along with Ext.P3 revision petition. However, the revisional authority has dismissed the revision petition on the sole ground that there is delay in filing the revision petition as per Ext.P4. Petitioner would contend that the dismissal of the delay condonation application as evident by Ext.P4 is in violation of the order granting extension of period of limitation by the Apex Court in the wake of Covid pandemic as per Ext.P5. As per Ext.P5 order of the Apex Court the period from 15.03.2020 W.P.(C).No.13462 of 2022 4 2025:KER:11764 to 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded from the period of limitation under the various statutes. The petitioner would submit that the revision could not be filed within time only for the reason by a mistake the appeal in the revision was filed before the 2nd respondent itself and on realizing the mistake, a fresh revision petition was filed before the 3rd respondent on 24.12.2021 that too within the period fixed by the Apex Court as per Ext.P5. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Tax also. 4. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the period of 4 days is to be excluded giving the benefit of Ext.P5 judgment, and taking into consideration the fact that Ext.P2 order though dated 9.11.2021 was communicated only on 20.11.2021. Accordingly Ext.P4 order is set aside, with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 revision petition submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being W.P.(C).No.13462 of 2022 5 2025:KER:11764 heard to the petitioner within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE pm