SREE VALAYANAD HINDU SEVA SAMITHI (REGN. NO.338/1980) REP. BY SECRETARY, SHRI P.M.RAMESH Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It owns an extent of 39 cents of land in Ward No.24, Block 8, T.S.No.303/1 and 306/1 of Calicut Corporation. It is stated that, while the petitioner had applied for a building permit for construction of a building on the said premises, and the same was issued to the petitioner as evidenced from Ext.P1 dated 22.10.1986, the petitioner could not complete the building within the time granted in Ext.P1 building permit. The building was completed only in the year 2000. The petitioner, therefore, by Ext.P2 application dated 28.03.2000, applied to the 3rd respondent for regularisation of the construction. It is submitted that Ext.P2 application has not been considered by the 3rd respondent till date and no orders have been passed in the said application. While so, alleging that the petitioner was carrying on activities in violation of the express terms of the D and O license granted to it, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 show cause notice, to which the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply. Apparently, the 3rd respondent has not passed any order in the said matter as well. Although, the petitioner, thereafter, preferred Exts.P5, P6 and P7 reminders, the 3rd respondent does not appear to have considered and passed orders on Ext.P3 show cause notice till date. During the period from 2000 to 2016, while the petitioner was pursuing his application for regularisation of the construction that was put up by him, he was also served with Exts.P8 and P11 demand notices for payment of property tax in respect of the said construction. Although, the petitioner preferred Ext.P9 appeal against Ext.P8 demand notice before the Standing Committee for Finance of the 3rd respondent Corporation, the said appeal has not been considered and disposed by the said Standing Committee till date. In the meanwhile, Ext.P11 demand notice, which is essentially an updated version of the demand already raised in Ext.P8, to cover the period between the dates of Exts.P8 and P11, was also issued. On the petitioner not making any payment pursuant to Exts.P8 and P11, Ext.P12 revenue recovery notice was also served on the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Exts.P12 revenue recovery notice and also seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application, which was preferred by him seeking a regularisation of the alleged unauthorised construction.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent Corporation.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that by an interim order dated 08.11.2016, this Court had stayed further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P12 for a period of one month. When the case was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner essentially sought for an extension of the interim order. It was then noticed that the writ petition itself can be disposed in the following manner: