Disposed

Yesudas v. the District Collector

Kerala HC5 Sept 2013WP(C)/16393/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the fair value of the petitioner's wet land notified under Section 28A of the Stamp Act. The Respondent admitted a mistake in the initial notification and issued a revised one fixing the value at Rs. 6,000 per Are. The court allowed registration of documents based on this revised notification and left the petitioner's right to challenge it via

What did the court decide?

Documents submitted for registration can be registered based on the revised fair value notification dated 23.07.2013 subject to satisfaction of stamp duty, rights to challenge via statutory appeal rem

Yesudas Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/14TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 16393 of 2013 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

YESUDAS,

¶8

D/O.DEVASSY, EDAKKALATHUR HOUSE, MULLASSERY P.O. PIN-680509, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001.

¶12

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 16393 of 2013 (Y)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2034/2009 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28A.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE RERPRESENTATION DATED 16-4-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.7-6-2010 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULLASSERY.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11-1-2011 BEARING NO.B43808/2010 OF THE RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶29

---------------------------------------

¶30

W.P.C.No.16393 OF 2013

¶31

Dated this the 05^th day of September, 2013.

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner is mainly aggrieved of Ext.P2 notification issued by the competent authority under Section 28A of the Stamp Act, whereby the fair value of the property belonging to the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 document has been shown as Rs.17,500/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred only) per Are, while in respect of some other item, it has been shown as Rs.25,000/- ((Rupees Twenty five thousand only). This according to the petitioner does not have any rhyme or reason at all and

¶34

the property of the petitioner is actually a 'wet land' and not a garden land, so as to have the value of Rs.17,500/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred only) or Rs.25,000/- ((Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as notified in Ext.P2.

¶35

The petitioner in fact wanted to sell the property; for which, an agreement for sale has already been executed. But the unreasonable fair value already fixed is deterring the prospective purchaser to complete the deal and hence the Writ Petition.

¶36

¶37

W.P.C.No.16393 OF 2013

¶38

The learned Government Pleader submits that a memo has been filed before this Court, pointing out that, there occurred a mistake. The learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that, incorporation of the concerned figure in Ext.P2 notification, fixing the 'fair value' as Rs.17,500/- per Are was only due to the said mistake and that, on conducting a re-verification, it has been revealed that the property of the petitioner is still continuing as a 'paddy land'; however with road access. It was accordingly, that the fair value was re-fixed as Rs.6,000/- per Are and that a notification has been issued on 23.07.2013 in the prescribed form under the relevant rule. It is also stated that, steps have already been taken, to cause the same to be published in the Gazette, as prescribed.

¶39

In the above circumstances, this Court finds that, if at all any conveyance is to be effected by the petitioner, it can onlly be with reference to the revised notification dated 23.07.2013. On satisfaction of the stamp duty in terms of the said notification, the document prepared and presented for registration shall be registered by the concerned Registering authority, subject to the

¶40

¶41

W.P.C.No.16393 OF 2013

¶42

satisfaction of other requirements if any, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Registration Act/Rules; notwithstanding the fact that Gazette notification of the revised fair value is yet to be made.

¶43

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that even the revised fair value, as per the recent notification, is not correct and excessive, the right and liberties of the petitioner to challenge the said notification by way of statutory Appeal as provided, are left open.

¶44

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶45

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶46

Yesudas v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yesudas 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

Chinnamma Joseph Vs District Collector

Sivaraman Vs Anil Kumar Agarwal

Krishnankutty Nair Vs District Collector

U.Kunhiraman Vs District Collector

Raveendranath Vs the Tahasildar

Sebastin Joseph Vs State of Kerala