Court affirms order condoning payment delay but requires review of pandemic-related interest exemptions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has been assigned with a land for his beneficial enjoyment, vide Ext.P18. Ext.P18 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,16,396/-, which as per the governing rules had to be paid within a period of one month. The petitioner could not pay the same and he sought for time vide Ext.P19 espousing his absence in Kerala and due to Covid-19 lockdown. The petitioner also sought for extension of time, so as to enable him to pay the amount and to complete the proceedings in Ext.P18. Vide Ext.P20, the petitioner’s request was forwarded to the Government. Ext.P22 is a communication by the District Collector to the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram calling upon the Tahsildar to ascertain whether the subject land is required for the beneficial enjoyment of the petitioner. Ext.P22 specifically refers to a communication dated 22.02.2024 (sl.no.3), wherein the petitioner had expressed his willingness to make the payment. While so, there was an amendment to the concerned Rules namely, Kerala Assignment of Land within the Municipal and Corporation Area Rules , 1995 in the year 2023, which has been produced at Ext.P28. As per the amendment, a proviso was added to Rule 9, enabling condonation of delay in deserving cases for a period up to three years by the Land Revenue Commissioner; and thereafter, by the State Government, if the delay is more than three years. A note appended to the amendment specifically directs that the arrears of assignment dues shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Acting upon Ext.P28, Ext.P27 was passed condoning the delay in the petitioner’s case, but on condition of payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as contemplated in Ext.P28.

2. It is the petitioner’s contention that Ext.P27 was passed after filing the Writ Petition seeking enforcement of Ext.P18 Order by effecting payment of the amounts stipulated therein, thereby maintaining that the petitioner is not bound to pay any interest. Learned Counsel would submit that the petitioner is entitled to exclusion of the Covid pandemic period. Besides, the delay occasioned for processing Exts.P19 and P20 applications cannot be attributed to the petitioner. On such premise, he seeks to get the interest, mulcted by virtue of Ext.P27, obliterated.

3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court notice that the petitioner cannot be aggrieved of the issuance of Ext.P27 during the pendency of the Writ Petition, inasmuch as it is substantially in favour of the petitioner, but for the interest component. The delay in making the payment as directed in Ext.P18 has been condoned and interest has been directed to be paid, only in accordance with Ext.P28 amendment to Rule 9. There is no challenge, whatsoever, to that Ext.P28 amendment before this Court. In the circumstances, this Court cannot find anything illegal with respect to Ext.P27 Order.

4. However, on humanitarian consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the period during which the State was affected by Covid 19 pandemic can be excluded by the appropriate authority. Necessary guidance as regards the period eligible for exemption can be had from the Orders issued by the Supreme Court, though such orders are not, as such, applicable to administrative matters. This is an aspect to be considered by the 2^nd respondent, bearing in mind the principle that the law cannot compel one to do the impossible. Covid 19 was a period during which the entire activities of the Country came to a grinding halt and the petitioner cannot be blamed for not making the payment within the time stipulated in Ext.P18, which was dated 13.02.2020. Giving due consideration to this aspect, this Court directs the 2^nd respo