Remanded

M.I.Sunny v. the District Collector

Kerala HC18 Nov 2013WP(C)/11914/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order fixing compensation at Rs. 3.5 lakhs per are for property lacking road access, despite revenue reports suggesting a lower rate. The Court set aside the order, directing the District Collector to reconsider the matter based on relevant revenue reports and pass a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Ext. P8 order set aside; direction to District Collector to reconsider matter with reference to Ext. P3 to P5 reports after hearing petitioner and pass speaking order within two months.

M.I.Sunny Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/27TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 11914 of 2013 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. M.I.SUNNY, AGED 66 YEARS S/O.ITTIACHAN, MECHERY HOUSE, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. SHEELA DAVIS, W/O.M.I.DAVIS, MECHERY HOUSE, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680001.

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680001.

¶13

3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK-680001.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALAPPAD VILLAGE OFFICE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR-680001.

¶15

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶16

*** ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED**

¶17

6. SUB REGISTRAR THRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR.

¶18

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.10.2013 IN IA 13937/2013.

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No. 11914 of 2013 (L)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3-2-11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 3-3-11 SUBMITTED BY THE R4.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21-1-12 OF R3.

¶28

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21-1-12 OF R3.

¶29

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY R3 DATED 27-2-12.

¶30

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-10-12 OF R1.

¶31

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 28A OF KERALA STAMP ACT.

¶32

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-1-13 OF R1.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

JUDGMENT

Fixation of a higher fair value in respect of the property comprised in Survey No. 252/1 of Valappad village belonging to the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶43

The case of the petitioner is that the property having an extent of 9.71 Ares of land belonging to the petitioner situated in aforesaid survey number is not having road access, but for private pathway and is having only much lesser value. It is stated that the fair value in respect of the adjoining property having clear road access is fixed at Rs. 80,000/- by the revenue authorities, whereas the property having no road access has been fixed at Rs. 7 lakhs, which might be a mistake occurred in place of the fair value of Rs. 70,000/- per are. This made the petitioner to approach the concerned authority, particularly the second respondent, vide Ext. P1, upon which a report was called for from the concerned Village Officer, who submitted Ext. P3 report, which virtually supports the plea raised by the petitioner.

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 11914 of 2013

¶45

: 2 :

¶46

There is an observation in Ext. P3 report that the amount shown in the fair value notification as 'Rs. 7 lakhs per Are' can only be a mistake and the same could be brought down to Rs. 80000/per Are in respect of the garden land without road access. The petitioner also makes a reference to Ext. P4 report dated 21.02.2012 submitted by the 3^rd respondent, wherein the factual position as above is reiterated. It was accordingly, that Ext. P5 report dated 27.02.2012 was submitted by the additional Tahasildar to the second respondent, referring to the position and topography on comparison with the nearby lands and making recommendation to the effect that the land can be declared as 'garden land without road access' with fair value of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

¶47

The appeal preferred by the petitioner earlier, came to be rejected as per Ext. P6 order dated 11.10.2012 by the first respondent. However pursuant to the intervention made by the Government under similar circumstances, the appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be reconsidered and Ext. P8 order was passed on 14.01.2013, whereby the fair value already fixed and notified to an extent of Rs. 7 lakhs was brought down to Rs. 3.5 lakhs, which according to the petitioner, is absolutely without any

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 11914 of 2013 : 3 :

¶49

rhyme or reason and without any reference to the relevant reports, hence the challenge.

¶50

The Writ Petition was admitted as early as on 07.05.2013, also granting interim order as prayed for. Till today, no counter affidavit has been filed from the part of the respondents.

¶51

Heard both the sides at length.

¶52

On going through the pleadings, which now stand uncontroverted, and in view of the contents of Exts. P3, P4 and P5 reports of the Revenue authorities as to the glaring inconsistencies/mistake in fixing the fair value in respect of the property owned by the petitioner, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent. Absolutely no reference is there in Ext. P8 with regard to the reports of the Village Officer. Accordingly Ext. P8 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, with reference to Exts. P3 to P5 reports and such other relevant materials, by passing a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the order so brings down the fair value of the property concerned, necessary

¶53

W.P.(C) No. 11914 of 2013

¶54

: 4 :

¶55

steps shall be taken to notify the same in the official gazette without further delay.

¶56

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶59

kmd

M.I.Sunny v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.I.Sunny v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandy Joseph Vs the Chief Conservator of Forests

K.v.Kurien Vs the Tahsildar

C.K.Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Dhanya Mithran Vs Dr.K.Elangovan

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

A.Ramadas Vs the Village Officer