Allowed

Varkey Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2023WP(C)/6854/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging fixation of land acquisition fair value. Petitioner argued the definition of fair value applicable at the time of his March 2019 application should govern, not an amended definition later introduced. Court directed recomputation of fees. Allowed the writ.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to recompute fair value and fees based on the definition applicable on 11.03.2019 and refund excess amounts within three months.

Varkey Abraham Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6854 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

VARKEY ABRAHAM

¶7

AGED 70 YEARS

¶8

S/O. LATE P.V. ABRAHAM KALLUPURAKAL, PURAMTHADIYIL,
AMICHEKARY P.O. NEDUMPURAM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 689751

¶9

BY ADVS.
SOJAN JAMES
JOHNYMON THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

¶12

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶13

THIRUVALLA, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689101

¶14

3 THE TAHSILDAR

¶15

TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689101

¶16

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KAVUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KAVUMBHAGAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689103

¶17

5 SUB TREASSURY OFFICER SUB TREASSURY, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101

¶18

SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C) NO.6854 OF 2023

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2023

¶24

The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶25

“i) Call for the records of the case leading to the issuance of Ext.P6, P8 and P11 and quash the same by issuance of writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

¶26

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 5^th respondent to refund the excess amount collected from the petitioner in pursuance to Ext.P6 notice and to reconsider Ext.P10 afresh. “

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶28

learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶29

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

¶30

owner of 129.63 Ares of land situated in various Survey numbers in Kavumbhagom Village, Thiruvalla Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. The petitioner had earlier submitted an application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, but no orders were passed pursuant thereto. Hence, he

¶31

WP(C) NO.6854 OF 2023

¶32

had preferred Ext.P4 application under Form-7, in terms of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 on 11.03.2019.

¶33

The petitioner is now aggrieved by the fixation of Fair Value of the property, taking note of the Fair Value of the nearby dry land and contends that such calculation would be justifiable only after the amendment of the definition of the Fair Value with effect from the date of such amendment. Since the petitioner's application was submitted prior to the amendment of the definition of the 'Fair Value' clause in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, only the Fair Value of the property belonging to the petitioner, as it stood on the said date, can be taken note of.

¶34

Having heard the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that since the application submitted by the petitioner is admittedly in March, 2019 and since the definition of Fair Value in the Act was specifically the Fair Value of the property in

¶35

WP(C) NO.6854 OF 2023

¶36

¶37

question, if the Fair Value was fixed, the contention of the petitioner is liable to be accepted.

¶38

In view of the above, there will be a direction to the

¶39

respondents to recompute the Fair Value of the property belonging to the petitioner, taking note of the date of submission of Ext.P4 application and fix the fees to be paid with reference to the Fair Value of the property of the petitioner as it stood on the date of application. If, after re-computation, amounts are found due to the petitioner, the amount shall be duly released without delay, at any rate, within three months from the date on which re-computation is made.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO.6854 OF 2023

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6854/2023

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION DATED
17-03-2014 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION
DT.22.3.2014 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID PROCEEDINGS OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25-09-2014
ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY, PERINGARA
GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN THAT CONNECTION
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 7 APPLICATION
ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
11.03.2019
Exhibit5A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT
DT.12.03.2019
Exhibit P6A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE DATED
03.03.2022
Exhibit P7A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, KAVUMBHAGAM DATED
30.07.2019
Exhibit P8A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.03.2022
Exhibit P9A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 22.07.2022
Exhibit P10A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION
DATED 10.8.2022
Exhibit P11A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.9.2022
Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
DATED 30.03.2022 SHOWING THE PRESENT
VALUE OF, RE. SY NO.220/2, THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER

Varkey Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varkey Abraham 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

Denny K G Vs State of Kerala

Asok Kumar Sreedharan Vs Union of India

Muhammed @ Bapputty Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector

Capt. Vinod Narayanan Vs Village Officer

Susha Lonappan, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Satheesh Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer