Partly allowed

Thankom v. the Village Officer, Kollengode

Kerala HC18 Jul 2017WP(C)/5143/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the fair value of acquired land should be fixed based on the Tahsildar's report from 2010/2011 rather than an older 2006 valuation. Setting aside the impugned order, the court directed the District Collector to pass fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing to revise fair value was set aside; the District Collector was directed to pass fresh orders based on 2011 values.

Thankom Vs the Village Officer, Kollengode — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2017/27TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 5143 of 2012 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THANKOM AGED 81, W/O.SUBRAMANIAN, CHUTTYCHIRAKALAM, NENMENI, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLENGODE KOLLENGODE NO.1, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678506.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR

¶12

CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678806.

¶13

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶14

PALAKKAD, PIN-678506.

¶15

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶16

PALAKKAD, PIN-678506.

¶17

5. STATE OF KERALA

¶18

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RON BASTIAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sdr/-

¶22

WP(C).No. 5143 of 2012 (P)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

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

¶25

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TH RESPONDENT DATED 5-1-2011.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21-3-2011.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19-7-2011.

¶30

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 26-10-2011.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶32

EXT.R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 4387/2011/RD, DT. 10/10/2011.

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶37

********************************************************************** W.P.(C) No.5143 of 2012

¶38

********************************************************************** Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2017

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 2.9248 Hectares of land comprised in Re-survey Nos.110/1, 120/2, 114/3, 126/6, 126/7, 114/1, 114/4, 125/5, 125/8, 125/10, 125/11, 109/3, 111/7 and 125/7 of Kollengode 1 Village, Chittoor Taluk, Palakkad District.

¶41

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

¶42

the fair value fixed in respect of the above lands. It may be appropriated to refer to the comparative chart of the fair value fixed and the fair value suggested by the Tahsildar as referred

¶43

in the writ petition:

¶44

Re-survey Number	Value fixed per Are.	*Value fixed by the* *Tahsildar*
110/1	Rs.35,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
120/2	Rs.17,000/-	Rs.12,500/-
114/3	Rs.18,000/-	Rs.12,500/-
126/6	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.12,500/-
126/7	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.12,500/-
114/1	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.12,500/-
114/4	Rs.16,500/-	Rs.12,500/-
125/5	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-

¶45

W.P.(C) No.5143 of 2012 2

¶46

Re-survey Number	Value fixed per Are.	*Value fixed by the* *Tahsildar*
125/8	Rs.25,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
125/10	Rs.25,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
125/11	Rs.25,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
109/3	Rs.35,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
111/7	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.5,000/-
125/7	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.5,000/-

¶47

The report of the Tahsildar was in the year 2011. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer overruled the objection stating that the fair value originally proposed was in the year 2006 and the publication was only in the year 2010 and therefore, there is no scope for revising the fair value. This order was also affirmed by the District Collector.

¶48

It is to be noted that the Tahsildar filed his report only in the year 2011. The Tahsildar report, certainly, was with reference to the time during which the site inspection was conducted. It was in the year 2011. Therefore, it is a relevant factor to be reckoned. No doubt subsequent enhancement made by the Government enhancing the prevailing fair value could have an impact for subsequent

¶49

W.P.(C) No.5143 of 2012 3

¶50

revision of fair value. However, this Court is of the view that the fair value as referred in the report of the Tahsildar shall be fixed as on it was applicable in the year 2010. Accordingly, this impugned order is set aside. The District Collector is directed to pass fresh orders in the light of the above. It is made clear that the subsequent Government Order enhancing the fair value for the fair value of the land fixed earlier would also apply to the petitioner's case as well.

¶51

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶54

Thankom v. the Village Officer, Kollengode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankom v. the Village Officer, Kollengode

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

Brahandala Channatti Vs Muraleedhara Kurup

Sunil Sivadasan Vs Sri. Suresh Kumar S

Biju K.M. Vs District Collector

Sreeja.a. Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, Munnavirul Islam Aided L.P Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Lukose Vs State of Kerala