The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the District Collector's order fixing the fair value of the petitioner's land. The Court quashed the petitioner's contention that natural justice was violated and found the valuation process substantially compliant with statutory rules.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 1290 of 2018
----------------------
PETITIONER
WILSON K.G,
AGED 50, S/O KADA GEORGE, CHEERPU VILLAGE AND DESOM,
TRISSUR TALUK
BY ADV.SRI.T.N.MANOJ
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
6. THE SUB REGISTRAR,
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT A.C.VIDHYA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WP(C).No. 1290 of 2018 (I) --------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXHBIT P1 |
TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT PERTAINING TO THE LAND COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO.196/2 |
|---|---|
| EXHIBITP2 |
TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF THE LAND TAX |
| EXHIBITP3 |
PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE PRESENT LIE AND THE NATURE OF THE PADDY LANDS OF THE PETITIONER IN SY NO.195/2 |
| EXHIBITP3(A) |
PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE PRESENT LIE AND THE NATURE OF THE PADDY LANDS OF THE PETITIONER IN SY NO.196/2 |
| EXHIBITP4 |
TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FO LAND COMPRISED IN SY NO.195/2 |
| EXHIBITP5 |
TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FO LAND COMPRISED IN SY NO.196/2 |
| EXHIBIT P6 |
PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE PRESENT LIE AND THE NATURE OF THE PADDY LAND COMPRISED IN SURVEY NUMBER 180/4 CHEVOOR VILLAGE |
| EXHIBITP7 |
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 4118/14 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT |
| EXHIBIT P8 |
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COLLECTOR OF THE DISTRICT RE FIXING THE LAND VALUE @ RUPEES 8,000/- PER ARE |
| EXHIBITP9 |
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR REJECTING THE APPEAL |
| RESPONDENTS EXH --------------- |
IBITS: NIL ----- |
/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 24.07.2018
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
W.P.(C)No.1290 of 2018
Dated this the 09th day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P9 order dated 12.09.2017 rendered by the first respondent District Collector, Thrissur, dismissing the appeal dated 11.08.2015 of the petitioner challenging the fixation of the fair value in respect of the petitioner's land, by taking recourse to the provisions contained in Section 28A(4) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder in that behalf.
W.P.(C)No.1290 of 2018
..2..
“ 1. Appropriate Writ Order or direction to quash/set aside Exhibit P9.
2. Appropriate writ order or direction declaring the fair value of the land of the petitioner comprised in survey number 195/2 and 196/2 to be @ rupees 8000/-per are.
3. Appropriate direction to the 1st respondent to inspect the land comprised in survey number 195/2 and 196/2, of Chevoor Village and to take a decision to fix the Fair value of the paddy land also considering Exhibit P8 order passed pertaining to the paddy land comprised in survey number 180/4.
4. Such other writ order or direction that this honorable Court deem fit to grant in the course of the proceedings.”
petitioner and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
"രശർ ത�ലക� ച�വർ വ�ല�ജ� സർച� 196/2, 195/2 എന�വയ�ൽ ഉൽച�ട യഥ�കമ� 13.95 ആർ, 39.66 ആർ ഭമ�കളച# ന%�യവ�ല, (28750/- രപ) സമ)പതള സമ�ന സ,ഭ�വമള ഭമ�കളച# ന%�യവ�ലലയക�ൾ അധ�കമച�ന ക�ണനത�ന�ൽ ലകരള മദ പതന�യമ� 1959, 28(എ) വക�� പക�ര� സമർ��ച�ടള അ�)ൽ അലപകപക�ര� ലമൽ�റഞ ഭമ�കളച# ന%�യവ�ല പനർന�ർണയ� ച�ലAണത�ച�ന ക�ണന. ആയത�ന�ൽ ല�ർ�� SRO യ�ചല 2563/2007 നമർ ആധ�രത�ചല സർച� നമർ 196/2 ൽ ഉൾച�ട 13.95 ആർ ഭമ�യച#യ� ല�ർ�� SRO യ�ചല 161/2002 നമർ ആധ�രത�ചല സർച� നമർ 195/2 ൽ ഉൾച�ട 39.66 ആർ ഭമ�യച#യ� ന%�യവ�ല പനർന�ർണയ� ച�യനത�ന�യ� സമർ��ച�രന അ�)ൽ അലപക ന�രസ�ച� ഇത�ന�ൽ ഉതരവ�കന.”
W.P.(C)No.1290 of 2018
..3..
“അ�)ൽ അലപകയ�ൽ ത)രമ�നചമടകനത�ലലക� അലപക കക�ചയ 30/01/17 ന� വ � �രണ ച�യ� ചമ�ഴ� ലരഖച�ടത�യ�ടളതമ�ണ�.”
para.2 of Ext.P9 appellate order, this Court is of the view that the above said contention raised by the petitioner that he was not heard is factually not tenable.
..4..
W.P.(C)No.1290 of 2018
W.P.(C)No.1290 of 2018
..5..
raised by the petitioner based on Ext.P8. The merits of such a contention would have been duly taken note of by this Court if at least the petitioner had urged that aspect based on Ext.P8 in his appeal memorandum and the non-consideration of that aspect based on Ext.P8 despite it being urged in the appeal could have been thus urged as a ground in the W.P.(C). Such a ground is not urged in the writ petition (civil), as well. In view of these aspects, this Court is not inclined to remit the matter merely on account of the aspects born out by Ext.P8. Moreover, it is seen that the petitioner's land is comprised in Survey Nos.196/2 and 195/2. The 1st respondent- District Collector, on the basis of the materials made available by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar and the 4th respondent-RDO, has found that the fair value in respect of the immediately neighbouring lands in Survey Nos.195/3, 195/5 and 195/8 is fixed at Rs.28,750/-. The petitioner's land as well as the above said lands are neighbouring and adjoining wet lands. The 2nd respondentTahsildar was called upon by the 1st respondent-District Collector to furnish report in the matter and after the due process the Tahsildar has given report dated 09.03.2016 which is referred to as Item No.2 in Ext.P9 wherein these factual aspects has been dealt with. The above said factual aspects dealt with in the report of the 2nd respondent-
W.P.(C)No.1290 of 2018
..6..
Tahsildar has also been concurred by the 4th respondent-RDO whose views has also been duly ascertained by the 1st respondent-District Collector. It is in the light of these cumulative aspects, that the 1st respondent-District Collector has come to the conclusion that the fair value in respect of the immediate neighbouring lands in Survey Nos.195/3, 195/5 and 195/8 could be taken into consideration and that therefore the fair value fixed in respect of the petitioner's land at Rs.28,750/-, does not deserve any interdiction.
“ 5. Filing of Appeal.- (1) xxx xxx xxx
W.P.(C)No.1290 of 2018
..7..
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) The Collector shall examine the appeal taking into account all factors relating to the fair value of the land [including the average fair value of five similar or similarly situated plots, where such lands are available] and take appropriate decision there on provided that the petitioners shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before taking a final decision.”
11. Rule 8(1) of the same Rules provides as follows:-
“8. Disposal of Appeal.- (1) The Collector may before taking final decision, obtain from any source such further information, as may be necessary for the purpose. The Collector may also call for such information as he deems necessary from the parties and,-
(a) call for any information or record from any public office or authority under the Government or local body;
(b) examine and record statements from any member of the public, or authority under the Government of a local body, and
(c) inspect the land after due notice to the parties concerned.”
12. Rule 5 of the Kerala Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation
of Instruments) Rules, 1968 reads as follows:-
“ 5 . Principles for determination of value or consideration.- The Collector shall, as far as possible, have also regard to the following points in arriving at the provisional value or consideration, namely:-
(a) in the case of lands,-
(i) nature of the land or ground such as garden, wet and the like;
(ii)other factors, which influence the valuation of the land in question;
(iii) points, if any, mentioned by the parties to the instrument or any other person which require special consideration;
(iv) value of adjacent lands or lands in the vicinity;
(v) average yield from the land, nearness to road and market, level of land, transport facilities, facilities
W.P.(C)No.1290 of 2018
..8..
available for irrigation, such as tank, wells, etc.; (vi) the nature of crops raised on the land; [(vii) the use of land, domestic, commercial, industrial or agricultural purposes];
xxx xxx xxx”.
W.P.(C)No.1290 of 2018
..9..
the matter as is evident from para.2 of Ext.P9. Therefore, it is evident that there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the Rules on the part of the 1st respondent-District Collector before he had issued the impugned Ext.P9 appellate order. In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for exercising of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, the above writ petition (civil) will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
skj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Collector's appellate order fixing fair land value was issued without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Whether the District Collector conducted the valuation proceedings in compliance with the Kerala Stamp Act and Rules framed thereunder.
Whether this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the District Collector's determination of fair land value.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Constitution of IndiaReferred¶11
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
3 provisions across 2 enactments
WILSON K.G
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRISSUR
THE STATE OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
