Dismissed

Sunitha Paul v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2020RP/787/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a review petition filed to challenge a judgment in a writ appeal concerning the fixation of fair value of land under the Kerala Stamp Act. The court held that the grounds raised did not demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record and essentially contested the decision in the original appeal.

What did the court decide?

The review petition failed and is dismissed.

Sunitha Paul Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶7

RP.No.787 OF 2020 IN WA. 1309/2016

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WA 1309/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 SUNITHA PAUL W/O.PAUL ABRAHAM,THADIKKARAN HOUSE,MATTUR,VIA.KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 574.

¶10

2 LINY LABEES, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,KIDANGOOR, ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM-683 572.

¶11

3 JAMES.K.MATHEW, S/O.K.K.MATHEW,PARAMBATH KIZHAKKEKKARA HOUSE,MANEED.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 726.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI

¶14

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESNTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶18

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI-682001.

¶19

4 TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK,ERNAKULAM-683 101.

¶20

5 SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE ANGAMALY-683 572.

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

R.P. No. 787/2020 in W.A No. 1309 of 2016

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2020.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

SHAJI P. CHALY,J.

¶27

This review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 02.06.2020 in the above said writ appeal on the following grounds:

¶28

The learned counsel for the review petitioner contended that there occurred an error apparent on the face of the record while deciding the case distinguishing the powers conferred under the provisions of Sections 28A(i), 28A(1A) and 28A(1B) of the Kerala Stamp Act vis-a-vis the facts of the case and for other grounds.

¶29

It is submitted that going by the facts of the case, the fair value of petitioners' property was fixed at Rs.8,40,000/- and Rs.5,60,000/under Section 28A(1) in the 2010 year notification. Thereafter, the petitioners had applied to the 3^rd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer for reducing the fair value as the same was exorbitant. As evident from Ext.P4, it is clear that the site verification and physical inspection of the property was conducted on the said application and reports were forwarded to the 2^nd respondent, District Collector, including location sketch and again the District Collector had directed for site inspection. Thereafter, when the 3^rd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, based on the site inspection and location sketch only, had issued Ext.P12 order

¶30

R.P. No. 787/2020 in W.A No. 1309 of 2016

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

fixing the fair value of the property at Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,30,000/per Are respectively as per Ext.P12 order dated 06.11.2014 and published Ext.P13 gazette notification on 16.11.2014 and the same has become final. Thus, the increase in the land value during the period from 2010 to 2014 was taken into consideration while issuing Ext.P13 gazette notification.

¶33

It is also submitted that when the value of a land is fixed on the basis of a site inspection conducted in the year 2013, the same cannot be considered as a back dated value of land. Rather, it can only be considered as the value fixed on the basis of the condition of the land. Moreover, in none of the proceedings issued by respondents 2 and 3, it is stated that the land value is fixed as of the year 2010. It is practically impossible to fix the land value for the year 2010 by conducting a site inspection and getting a location sketch of the year 2014. Unless the State has a case that the land value is fixed after the verification of the sale deeds of the nearby property of the year 2010, it is unjust to conclude that the land value fixed in Ext.P12 proceedings is of the year 2010.

¶34

Further, the manner in which the fair value is to be fixed is explained in Section 28A(4) and Rule 3 of the Kerala Stamp (Fixation of Fair Value of Land) Rules, 1995. Going by Section 28A(4), it can only be concluded that the fair value as in Ext.P12 proceedings is fixed after

¶35

R.P. No. 787/2020 in W.A No. 1309 of 2016

¶36

: 4 :

¶37

considering the development of the area in which the land is situate, the proximity of the land to the markets, bus stations, railway stations, factories, educational institutions or other institutions, the geographical lie of the land etc., which definitely cannot relate back to the year 2010 as contended by the respondents.

¶38

It is further submitted that Ext.P13 gazette notification is dated 06.11.2014 though published on 16.11.2014 and Ext.P14 is dated 14.11.2014 with the date of coming into operation on 17.11.2014. Now Ext.P14 is admittedly the gazette notification published in exercise of the power under Section 28A(1B) of the Kerala Stamp Act. Ext.P14 gazette notification though dated 14.11.2014, the same is said to come into force only from 17.11.2014.

¶39

As evident from Exts.P13 and P14, the fair value fixed as per Section 28(1B) of the Kerala Stamp Act had come into operation only from 17.11.2014. Whereas, the fair value fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer had come into operation with effect from 06.11.2014 or the date of the gazette i.e., 16.11.2014. Thus, Ext.P13 order as to the fair value of the land as of the year 2014 have come into force before Ext.P14 and hence, review petitioners ought to have been given the benefit of Ext.P13 gazette notification. Similarly, all the grounds raised by the petitioners in the writ petition and other contentions were not properly appreciated and considered.

¶40

R.P. No. 787/2020 in W.A No. 1309 of 2016

¶41

: 5 :

¶42

In fact, the question raised by the review petitioners as above was considered elaborately, taking into account the provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and the other attendant Laws, since they were all arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/review petitioners at the time of hearing. Since we have considered all the points now raised in the review petition elaborately, we do not think that the review petitioners have made out any case of error apparent on the face of the record or other legal infirmities, justifying this Court to entertain the review petition. Further, on a reading of the review petition, what we could realise is that the grounds raised are against the findings rendered by this Court in the writ appeal, which could be made only against a challenge made to the judgment in the writ appeal. Therefore, we do not find any reason to entertain the review petition.

¶43

Needless to say, review petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶44

sd/- S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY,

JUDGE.

Sunitha Paul v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunitha Paul 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joby Vettiyadan, Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Joby Vettiyadan

V.Somanathan Vs the Appellate Authgority

The Director, Kerala State Lotteries Vs Ramachandran

Y.Sleebachan Vs I.K.Mohanan

George M.Philip Vs State of Kerala