Remanded

R.Babu Rajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Dec 2018WP(C)/27120/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged valuation orders for 23 cents of land taken possession of for a water treatment plant. Court held valuation was delayed beyond ordered timelines and set orders aside, remitting the matter to the District Collector to fix value afresh and grant statutory interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings set aside; matter remitted to District Collector to fix land value afresh, grant hearing to parties, and pay interest from 7.4.1993.

R.Babu Rajan Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 27120 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

R.BABU RAJAN

¶8

AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN,RAJALAYAM, KARINGANNUR P.O.,OYOOR FROM SARASWATHI VILASAM,VELINALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM - 691 506.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SMT.NIDHI RAVINDRAN SMT.VIDYA G NAIR SRI.D.THILAKAN SRI.M.YOHANNAN SRI.P.R.VIBHU

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVT. SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION (NO.1),KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION,KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶14

4 VELINALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VELINALLOOR P.O., KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM - 691 510.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.BINDU SREEKUMAR, SC FOR R4. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

==================

¶19

W.P.(C).No. 27120 of 2018

¶20

==================

¶21

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2019

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶24

“1. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P3 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶25

2. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3^rd respondent to fix the land value of the acquired property extending 9.20 Ares belonging to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.22,500/- per Are, the fair value of the land as of now vide Exhibit P5.

¶26

3. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4^th respondent to effect payment of the amount for the acquired property to the petitioner within a time frame.

¶27

4. And to pass such other appropriate writs, orders or directions which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice.”

¶28

Heard Sri.Shabu Sreedharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for official R-1 to R-3 and Smt.Bindu Sreekumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for R-4 Velinalloor Grama Panchayat.

¶29

Landed property measuring 8 cents comprised in Sy.No.170/22 (old Sy.No.170/11) in Block No.38 of Velinalloor village, Kottarakkara taluk, Kollam revenue district, was acquired from the petitioner as per award No.12/90/91 for the construction of water treatment plant for the 4^th respondent Velinalloor grama Panchayat,

¶30

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 3 :-

¶31

Velinalloor, Kottarakkara. Further that the land was taken possession and the land was handed over to the Secretary of the 4^th respondent Panchayat on 18.3.1991. But that the requisitioning authority (R-4 Panchayat) had taken possession of 23 cents of land additionally from the petitioner, which was not included in the land acquisition proceedings. Further that as per order dated 7.4.1993 of the Munsiff, Kottarakkara, the petitioner had surrounded 23 cents of land to the Secretary of the 4^th respondent Panchayat subject to the right of the petitioner to get compensation. Since the petitioner was not granted compensation in that regard, he had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition, as O.P.No. 10581/1998. It is pointed out before this Court that the compensation of 8 cents of land earlier acquired was granted by the 4^th respondent Panchayat to the 2^nd respondent Land Acquisition officer, which was deposited in pursuance of the abovesaid award. As regards the abovesaid additional 23 cents of land, it appears that the request for taking advance possession was made as per the abovesaid order on I.A.No.733/1993 in O.S.No. 514/1993 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara (Ext.P-4 in O.P.No. 10581/1998) and the consent statement dated 7.4.1993 filed in O.S.No. 514/1993 (Ext.P-5 in that O.P.). This Court found that as

¶32

per the abovesaid consent statement dated 7.4.1993, possession of the

¶33

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 4 :-

¶34

petitioner's 23 cents of land was duly taken over by the respondents. But that no acquisition proceedings were formally taken in respect of the said additional 23 cents of land, as the respondent Governmental authorities were under the impression that it was puramboke land, even though the same is in the possession of the petitioner. It was later that the petitioner had filed the said civil suit for declaring title and the final decree in that suit by the civil court concerned is referred to in pages 2 and 3 of the judgment dated 10.6.1999 of this Court in O.P.No.10581/1993 filed by the petitioner herein, which reads as follows:

¶35

“In the result, the plaintiff is given a decree and his title and possession over the plaint schedule property is hereby declared and that the defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and from creating records on the basis that the plaint is puramboke land and shring the plaint schedule property as puramboke land. But considering the nature and circumstances of this case, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Ext. C3 will form part of the decree and will be attached with the decree.”

¶36

This Court found in the said O.P. that the said decree was

¶37

not appealed against by the respondent State or the respondent Panchayat and that it has become final and so it was held that it cannot be stated by the respondents that the said additional 23 cents of land is either Panchayat land or Government puramboke land, etc. The respondent Panchayat stated before this Court in the said O.P.

¶38

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 5 :-

¶39

that the amount that was fixed by the competent revenue authority concerned was duly paid and that the respondent Panchayat is ready for payment of any additional amount in that regard if the competent revenue authorities revise or refix the amount to be paid or request to pay any additional amount. However, this Court held that the prayer in the said O.P. for direction to commence afresh land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said additional 23 cents of land, is not feasible or practical, as the possession of the property was already taken over. Further it was found that there was delay on the part of the petitioner in putting up the objections and that even though the petitioner was in the gulf country, his father was aware of the taking of possession, etc. Accordingly, this Court held in the judgment in above O.P., in the facts and circumstances of the said case that what should be done is fixation of the value of land by the competent revenue authorities concerned and after recording the fact that the land was duly taken over on 7.4.1993 and possession was also handed over on 7.4.1993. It was found therein that Ext.P-5 therein, which is a consent statement for taking of possession is bearing the date 7.4.1993. Accordingly, this Court ordered and declared that the value of the said additional 23 cents of land as on 7.4.1993 has to be fixed by the competent revenue authorities after hearing the petitioner and

¶40

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 6 :-

¶41

the respondent Panchayat. It is specifically directed that the respondent District Collector or his subordinate officials will fix value of the land with notice to the petitioner and the Panchayat within two months from the date of production of the said judgment dated 10.6.1999 in O.P.No. 10581/1998 and that the amount has to be paid by the respondent Panchayat to the petitioner without any further delay. However, this Court has added a specific condition that if the payment is amount is delayed by more than 4 months from the date of the fixation of the price as directed, then it will carry interest at the rate as stipulated in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the date of taking over possession. It is in the light of these findings and directions that the abovesaid O.P.No. 10581/1998 was filed by the petitioner, which was finally disposed of by this Court on 10.6.1999. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered on 10.6.1999 in O.P.No. 10581/1998 reads as follows:

¶42

“Petitioner's land was taken over for implementing water supply scheme. Petitioner was abroad at that time and his father was the power of attorney holder. Eight cents of land was acquired as per the land acquisition proceedings and award was passed in respect of the eight cents of land and as per the scheme, Panchayat has to give the land and Water Authority will have to provide other facilities. If Panchayat has no land, Government has to acquire the land at the instance of Panchayat and Panchayat will reimburse the value of the land. It is not disputed that value of the eight cents of land was given by the Panchayat to the Government and deposited the same in pursuance of the award. But, apart from the above, 23 cents of land was also taken possession by the Panchayat as they requested for advance possession as can be seen from Exts. P4 and P5. Ext. P5 clearly shows that possession was taken over. No acquisition proceedings were taken with respect to

¶43

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 7 :-

¶44

this 23 cents of land because Government was under the impression that it was puramboke land even though it was in possession of the petitioner and when the petitioner came from Gulf countries, petitioner enquired and found that it was not acquired on the assumption that it was puramboke land. Then petitioner filed a civil suit for declaring his title. The respondents including the State, Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, Panchayat etc. were impleaded as parties. Final decree was passed as follows:-

¶45

¶46

This decree was not appealed against by the State or the Panchayat and it has become final. So, it cannot be stated that this 23 cents of land is Panchayat land or puramboke land. Petitioner's land was taken over by the Panchayat for handing over to Water Authority without land acquisition proceedings and without paying any compensation. Now Panchayat has stated in the counter that whatever amount fixed by the Revenue was paid. Panchayat is ready for payment of any additional amount in this regard if the Revenue authorities revise or refix the amount to be paid or request to pay any additional amount. In view of the above submission, it can be seen that even now Panchayat is prepared to pay the cost of land if Revenue authorities refix the value of the land. The present petition for starting with the land acquisition proceedings is not feasible as the property was already taken over. Since there was undue delay in putting the claim by the petitioner even though his father was aware of taking of possession etc. Petitioner's claim for interest and other benefits under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be granted. On the facts and circumstances of the case, what is to be done is fixation of the value of the land by the Revenue authorities. The land was taken over on 07/04/1993. Possession was handed over on 07/04/1993. Ext. P5 for taking over possession is dated 07/04/1993. Therefore, value of the land as on 07/04/1993 has to be fixed by the Revenue authorities. Panchayat also should be heard while fixing the value. Third respondent, District Collector or through his subordinate officials will fix the value of the land with notice to the Panchayat and petitioner within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the District Collector and that amount has to be paid by the panchayat to the petitioner without delay. If payment of the amount is delayed by more than four months from the date of fixation of price as directed, it will carry interest at the rate as fixed in the Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking possession.

¶47

With the above directions, the O.P. is disposed of.”

¶48

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 8 :-

¶49

Being dissatisfied with the finding in the judgment dated 10.6.1999 of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.10581/1998, presumably to the extent it ordered that initiation of fresh land acquisition proceedings for the said additional 23 cents of land is not feasible, etc., the petitioner had preferred a writ appeal, as W.A.No. 1635/1999. The Division Bench of this Court as per judgment rendered on 10.6.2003 had found that as the ownership of the land of the appellant/writ petitioner is now with the respondent Panchayat or the Water Authority, the findings and directions of the learned Single Judge in the abovesaid O.P. are appropriate and proper and thus it was found by the Division Bench that the said judgment of the learned Single Judge does not require any appellate interdiction. But the Division Bench had specifically directed the respondent District Collector to fix the value of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the writ appeal was thus closed as per judgment dated 10.6.2003 in W.A.No.1635/1999 (arising out of O.P.No. 10581/1998). The judgment in W.A.No. 1635/1999 reads as follows:

¶50

“As the ownership of the land of the appellant/petitioner is now with the Panchayath or the Water Authority, it is only appropriate that, as directed by the learned Single Judge, the Collector shall fix the land value in accordance with the provisions of the land Acquisition Act.

¶51

The Writ Appeal is closed.”

¶52

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 9 :-

¶53

It appears that the specific time line and the conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 10.6.1999 in O.P.No.10581/1998, particularly with regard to the time line that the value of the additional 23 cents of land should be fixed by the competent revenue officials/District Collector with due notice to the petitioner and the respondent Panchayat within two months from the date of production of the copy of the judgment dated 10.6.1999 in that O.P., was not complied with. It appears that much long after the expiry of the time limit stipulated by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 10.6.1999 in the above O.P. and even long after the confirmation of that judgment of the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 10.6.2003 in W.A.No.1635/1999, the 3^rd respondent Collector had issued the impugned Ext.P-1 proceedings No.LA337774/90 dated 28.5.2008, which reads as follows:

¶54

'PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM

¶55

(Present:- Sri.A.Shajahan, I.A.S)

¶56

No.1-A3-37774/90 Datd:28.05.2008

¶57

Sub:- Land Acquisition - Construction of water tank and treatment plant at Velinaloor Village - Land value fixed orders issued - reg.

¶58

“Ref:- 1. Order of the Hon'ble High Court in W.A. 1635/1999 in O.P. 10581/98 dt. 10/06/2003.

¶59

2. Lr. No. 1021/89 dtd. 14/12/07 of the Special Tahsildar, LA No.1, Kollam.

¶60

3. Letter No. A5-12/08 dt. 26/05/2008 of the Secretary,

¶61

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 10 :-

¶62

Velinallor Gramma Panchayat, Oyoor, Kollam.

¶63

The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.A. 1635/1999 in O.P. 10581/98 dt. 10/06/2003 has ordered to fix the Land value as on 07/04/1993, of an extent of 23 cents of land comprised in sy. no. 170/11 of block no. 38 of Velinelloor village of Kottakrakkara Taluk of Kollam District.

¶64

The Special Tahsildar, LA No.1, Kollam has forwarded the Basis Valuation Report in respect of the land acquired for construction of water tank and treatment plant at Velinelloor Village in Kottarakkara Taluk. The land acquired and the basis land were duly inspected vide reference cited 3^rd . The Secretary, Velinallor Gramma Panchayat, Kollam has reported that the Panchayat Committee, vide decision No. VII(6) of its meeting held on 23/04/2008 has approved the land value proposed by the Special Tahsildar (LA) No.1 Kollam. In the above circumstances, the land value is fixed as detailed below:Taluk Village Block Survey Land Valued Relied No. No. Fixed Document Kottarakkara Velinelloor 38 170/11 Rs.960/- per Sale Deed Are No.118/91 (Rupees Nine dt 28/1/91 Hundred and of SRO, sixty only per Oyoor Are) Rs. 389/- per cent (Rupees three hundred and eighty nine only per cent) “

¶65

A reading of Ext.P-1 dated 28.5.2018 issued by the 3^rd respondent District Collector will disclose that based on the report of the Special Tahsildar, LA No.I, Kollam, to forward basic valuation report in respect of the said land and stand of the Secretary of the 4^th respondent Panchayat that the said Panchayat committee as per the decision taken on 23.4.2008 has approved the said land value proposed by the special Tahsildar (LA), the value was fixed as Rs.960/- per are (Rs.389 per cent) based on sale deed No.118/91/ dated 28.1.1991 of SRO,Oyoor.

¶66

The impugned Ext.P-1 proceedings dated 28.5.2008 was

¶67

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 11 :-

¶68

challenged by the petitioner herein by filing W.P.(C).No.8369/2010 before this Court. This Court as per Ext.P-2 judgment rendered on 11.8.2017 had finally disposed of W.P.(C).No.8369/2010 by finding that even earlier, the petitioner's land was acquired without following the procedure as contemplated in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the impugned valuation as per Ext.P-1 dated 28.5.2008 granting hardly land value @ Rs. 389/- per cent (Rs.906/- per are) is highly unreasonable and improper and had set aside Ext.P-1 herein. This Court had specifically directed as per Ext.P-2 judgment that fresh valuation shall be fixed after the verifying the necessary documents in an around the area of the acquired land at the relevant time and the petitioner was also given liberty to produce any documents showing the market value of the land before the 3^rd respondent District Collector Kollam, who was directed to complete all the necessary formalities in that regard within three months. Further this Court specifically ordered in Ext.P-2 judgment in W.P.(C).No. 8369/2010 that the compensation shall be given to the petitioner as per the land Acquisition Act, 1894 as ordered by this Court in the judgment in W.A.No.1635/1999, etc. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent District Collector has now passed the impugned Ext.P-3 proceedings dated 23.2.2018 ordering that the petitioner will be entitled for land value

¶69

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 12 :-

¶70

only @ Rs. 2,963/-. It is this order at Ext.P-3 dated 23.2.1018 that is under challenge.

¶71

From an appreciation of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that the respondents are bound by the first round of writ litigative proceedings in the judgment dated 10.6.1999 of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No. 10581/1998, which in turn was confirmed by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 10.6.2003 in W.A.No. 1635/1999. True that this Court had held in the said judgment that the main prayer therein made by the petitioner that fresh land acquisition proceedings should be initiated de novo in respect of the said additional 23 cents of land is not feasible or practicable. This Court also directed that the 3^rd respondent District Collector after hearing the petitioner and the respondent Panchayat should fix the value of the land within a period of 2 months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the judgment. In that connection, it is also relevant to bear in mind that this Court has specifically found in page 4 of the said judgment that, in view of the delay on the part of the petitioner, he is not entitled for other benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, apart from the compensation of the land value and it is in view of these aspects that this Court had specifically directed that

¶72

the process of fixation of land value should be finalised by the

¶73

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 13 :-

¶74

respondents within two months from the date of production of the copy of the judgment dated 10.6.1999. This Court further specifically directed that the payment of the amount is delayed, by more than four months from the date of the fixation of land value as directed in the said judgment, then the said amount will carry interest at the rate as fixed in the Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking possession (7.4.1993), etc. In the instant case, there is no dispute that even the very process of fixation of the land value was initially completed by the respondents only as per Ext.P-1 issued as late as on 28.5.2008. Even if the period of the pendency of W.A.No.1635/1999 (which arose from O.P.No.10581/1981) is excluded for the purpose the computation of the time line fixed by the learned Single Judge in that O.P., it can be seen that fixation of the land value as per Ext.P-1 rendered on 28.5.2008 is even 5 years after the judgment of the Division Bench rendered on 10.6.2003 in W.A.No.1635/1999. Therefore, it goes without saying that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of interest at the rate stipulated as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from the date of taking over possession (7.4.1993). That apart, even this Court has fully found in Ext.P-2 judgment that even the land value fixed as per Ext.P-1 dated 28.5.2008 is too low and unreasonable and had directed the 3^rd

¶75

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 14 :-

¶76

respondent District Collector to redo the process. Now the 3^rd respondent District Collector has issued the impugned Ext.P-3 proceedings dated 23.2.2018 granting only a total compensation of Rs. 2,963/-. It is stated in the statement dated 28.9.2018 filed by the 2^nd respondent herein that the said valuation as per the impugned Ext.P-3 proceedings dated 23.2.2018 was on the basis of the report of the Land Acquisition Officer and that the 4^th respondent has also placed the required fund for disbursal of the compensation amount to the petitioner @ 2,963/- per are.

¶77

From a mere reading of Ext.P-3 proceedings, it can be seen that interest amount, which is due to the petitioner in view of the default clause in the judgment dated 10.6.1999 of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No. 10581/1998, which in turn was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1635/1999, has not been given to the petitioner. The petitioner has serous dispute regarding the valuation made in Ext.P-3, whereby the same has been limited only to Rs. 2,963/- per are.

¶78

The petitioner has made various submissions urging that the land value is highly unreasonable and too low, and that even the fair value notification issued by the respondent State authorities subsequently, would also be a clear pointer to those aspects. This

¶79

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 15 :-

¶80

Court is not entering into those aspects of the matter, in view of the order that is proposed to be passed in this petition. It goes without any dispute that the specific directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgment rendered as early as 10.6.1999 in O.P.No.10581/1998 about the consequence of the default in adhering to the time line directed therein, has not been considered at all by the respondents. The respondents are bound by the judgment in the said O.P. and as the land value has been fixed long after the deadline fixed by this Court in that judgment, as already concluded in that judgment, the respondents are bound to pay interest to the petitioner as mandated in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the date of taking possession of the land (7.4.1993). Accordingly, the impugned Ext.P-3 proceedings will stand set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the 3^rd respondent District Collector for consideration afresh. The petitioner may give written submissions to the 3^rd respondent District Collector and the 2^nd respondent special Tahsildar about his submissions regarding the value of the land, etc. and such written submissions may be made by the petitioner before respondents 2 and 3 within two weeks from the date notified for receiving certified copy of the judgment and such representation should be accompanied by a certified copy of this judgment.

¶81

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 16 :-

¶82

Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent District Collector will afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent Velinalloor grama Panchayat and will properly fix the value of the land. Further it is specifically ordered that 3^rd respondent is bound to grant interest to the petitioner from 7.4.1993 as mandated in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The 3^rd respondent District Collector should pass fresh orders within 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Copies of the proceedings of the District Collector should be forwarded by registered speed post to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent grama Panchayat. It has to be borne in mind that the impugned land acquisition proceedings had originated in the year 1991 and the said additional 23 cents of land was taken possession as early as 7.4.1993. The various time lines fixed by this Court in various rounds of litigative proceedings have been given a complete go-by and now more than 26 longs years have elapsed after taking over possession of the property. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent will ensure that the emergent steps are taken to completely and properly redress the grievance of the petitioner in order to make sure that there is no further scope of any litigations. The amounts so fixed by the 3^rd respondent shall be paid by the 4^th respondent Panchayat without

¶83

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 17 :-

¶84

much delay, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the proceedings.

¶85

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶86

sdk+

¶87

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶88

W.P.(C).27120/18 - : 18 :-

¶89

APPENDIX

¶90

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶91

EXHIBIT P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.05.2008. EXHIBIT P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.8369/2010 DATED 11.08.2017. EXHIBTI P3. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.02.2018. EXHIBIT P4. THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.04.2018. EXHIBIT P5. THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE FAIR VALUE OF LAND ISSUED BY THE DEPT. OF REGISTRATION, GOVT. OF KERALA DATED 14.11.2014.

R.Babu Rajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Babu Rajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Gopi Vs State of Kerala

V.J.Wilson Vs the Coir Inspector, Office of the Coir Inspector

N.Mohanan Vs National Highways Authority of India

Biju Abraham Vs the Village Officer

N.v.John Vs Tahasildar

Sreenivasan Vs the Tahsildar