Sindu Santhosh vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 8479 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                   WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P)


PETITIONER:

              SINDU SANTHOSH,AGED 48 YEARS
              D/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, THAZHATHETHIL,
              THRIKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM
              DISTRICT-686105.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
              SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE
              SMT.C.B.SABEELA
              SMT.JISHA SASI

RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
              GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.

     2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
              COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686001.

     3        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
              O/O. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL
              STATION, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001.

     4        THE TAHSILDAR,
              CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,
              CHANGANACHERRY-686101.

     5        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
              THRIKODITHANAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THRIKODITHANAM
              P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686105.

              R BY GOT.PLEADER SMT. A.C. VIDHYA
                            -2-
WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P)



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   -3-
WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P)

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner in

possession of 20 Ares 20 sq.meters of land situated in Re.Sy.

No.76/2 and 69 Ares 03 sq.meters of land in Re.Sy.No.76/3 in

Block No.8 of Thrikodithanam Village in Changanacherry

Taluk, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the 2nd respondent District Collector to effect

necessary correction in Ext.P2 and reduce the fair value on

the basis of the market value prevailing in the locality. The

petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus

commanding the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 appeal

dated 22.01.2021 filed by the petitioner and pass orders on

the same within a time limit to be fixed by this Court, after

affording him an opportunity of being heard.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

3. Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 deals

with fixation of fair value of land. As per sub-section (1) of

Section 28A, every Revenue Divisional Officer shall, subject

WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P)

to such rules as may be made by the Government in this

behalf, fix the fair value of the lands situate within the area of

his jurisdiction, for the purpose of determining the duty

chargeable at the time of registration of instruments involving

lands. As per sub-section (1A) of Section 28A, subject to such

rules as may be prescribed, the fair value of land fixed under

sub-section (1) may be revised by the Revenue Divisional

Officer every five years or earlier if so directed by the

Government, if in the opinion of the Government any

substantial change of the fair value of land has taken place.

As per sub-section (3) of Section 28A, the fair value of land

fixed under sub-section (1) and the revised fair value of land

fixed under sub-section (1A) shall be published in such

manner as may be provided in the rules made under this Act.

As per sub-section (4) of Section 28A, any person aggrieved

by the fixation of fair value under sub-section (1) or the

revision of fair value under sub-section (1A) may, within one

year of its publication under sub-section (3), appeal to the

Collector. As per the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section

28A, inserted with effect from 01.04.2010, the Collector may

admit an appeal preferred after the said period of one year if

WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P)

he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not

preferring the appeal within the said period. As per sub-

section (5) of Section 28A, after the publication of the

increased fair value of land under sub-section (1B), any

person aggrieved by the fixation of fair value of land in an

appeal under sub-section (4) may, within a period of one year

from the date of publication of the notification under sub-

section (1B), file an application to the Collector to review the

order passed in appeal and the Collector shall dispose of the

same in such manner and within such period as may be

prescribed. Therefore, if the petitioner is feeling aggrieved by

the fixation of fair value by the Revenue Divisional Officer, he

can avail the statutory remedy before the 2 nd respondent

District Collector, by filing an appeal, under sub-section (4) of

Section 28A of the Act, read with Rule 5 of the Kerala Stamp

(Fixation of Fair Value of Land) Rules, 1995, in Form B,

affixing Court Fee Stamp as required by sub-rule (1) of Rules.

4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that

the 2nd respondent District Collector will consider and pass

appropriate orders on Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioner, if it

is in order and pending consideration, within a time limit to be

WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P)

fixed by this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that consideration of Ext.P14 appeal may be with notice to the

petitioner and after affording him a reasonable opportunity of

being heard.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate

orders on Ext.P4 appeal, if it is in order and pending

consideration, with notice to the petitioner and after affording

him an opportunity of being heard, within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

7. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9

SCC 309] the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be

issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the

provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law.

In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the

Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has

competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the

Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the

WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P)

statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule

of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are

contrary to what has been injected by law.

Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this

judgment, the 2nd respondent shall take an appropriate

decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking

note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on

the point.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE AV/15/3

WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO.

KL05011009070/2020 DATED 16/10/2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE OF THE LAND AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE OF THE ADJACENT LAND WITH RE.SY. NO.96/2,3,4 IN BLOCK NO.8 AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P4             TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED
                       22/01/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE
                       PETITIONER.