Disposed

Biju Sebastian v. the District Collector

Kerala HC26 Oct 2019WP(C)/38004/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed challenging illegal additional stamp duty demand and seeking direction to consider pending stamp duty appeals and representations. Held that appeals against extra demand be considered after hearing petitioners within two months. petition disposed by directng 2nd respondent to consider appeals.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P6 and P7 appeals with notice to petitioners within two months.

Biju Sebastian Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.38004 OF 2010(A)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 BIJU SEBASTIAN PALIYEKKUNNEL @ KUZHINJALIL HOUSE,, KURMANNU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 CHINNAMMA SEBASTIAN PALIYEKKUNNEL @ KUZHINJALIL HOUSE,, KURUMANNU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. PIN.686001

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. PIN.686001

¶13

3 THE SUB REGISTRAR ERATTUPETTA ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN.686121

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.RON BASTIAN, GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.38004 OF 2010(A) 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This writ petition is filed seeking the

¶20

following prayers:

¶21

i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 88,970/- illegally imposed from the petitioners as per Ext.P2 and Ext.P3, in the interest of justice.

¶22

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 representations after giving being chance of heard to the petitioners, immediately, within the time limit directed by this Honourable court.

¶23

It is submitted that the 1^st petitioner had purchased 65 Ares of property by a sale deed. It is stated that the additional stamp value was demanded in respect of the sale deed and in view of the fact that the execution of sale deed was urgent, the petitioners had paid the amount demanded in order to get the document registered.

¶24

Thereafter, the petitioners had submitted

¶25

Ext.P6 and P7 appeals before the second respondent. It is submitted that though the

¶26

WP(C).No.38004 OF 2010(A) 3

¶27

appeals had been submitted to the respondents on

¶28

30/11/2010, no orders have been passed. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P8 and P9 representations before the District Collector, but no relief had been granted.

¶29

Having considered the contentions

¶30

advanced, I am of the opinion that Ext.P6 and P7 appeals are liable to be considered in accordance with the law, after hearing the petitioners in case they are still pending. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P6 and P7 with notice to the petitioners.

¶31

Orders shall be passed within a period of 2

¶32

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶33

judgment. The Writ Petition is ordered

accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No.38004 OF 2010(A) 4

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF TH 03/11/2010 PASSED	E NOTIFICATION DATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF TH 09/11/2010.	E RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF TH 09/11/2010.	E RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 09/11/2010.	SALE DEED DATED
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 09/11/2010.	SALE DEED DATED
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE THE 2ND RESPONDEN	APPEAL DATED 30/11/2010 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE T.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE THE 2ND RESPONDEN	APPEAL DATED 30/11/2010 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE T.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE 30/11/2010 SUBMIT PETITIONER BEFORE	REPRESENTATION DATED TED BY THE 1ST THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE 30/11/2010 SUBMIT	REPRESENTATION DATED TED BY THE 2ND
	PETITIONER BEFORE	THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶43

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Biju Sebastian v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju Sebastian 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rugmini Subramanyan Vs Poothadi Grama Panchayath

Sapna.C.Sadanandan Vs a.Shajahan IAS

Rajesh.T.v. Vs Velur Grama Panchayat

K. Mohanan Vs State Project Director

K.R.Geetha Vs State of Kerala

Green Oasis Regency Hotel Vs Muttom Grama Panchayat