Tom Joseph vs Harees Rasheed, I.A.S
2021 Latest Caselaw 20672 Ker

CON.CASE(C) NO.1225 OF 2021     1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
                 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1225 OF 2021
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19983/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
                         KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

          TOM JOSEPH,
          AGED 52 YEARS
          S/O.M.D.JOSEPH(LATE), MUNDADAN HOUSE,
          ANGAMALY POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 572.

          BY ADV AVANEESH KOYIKKARA



RESPONDENT/7TH RESPONDENT:

          HAREES RASHEED, I.A.S.,
          (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
          THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, REVENUE
          DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI,
          ERNAKULAM-682 001.




          SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP




     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO.1225 OF 2021            2

                                   JUDGMENT

While disposing W.P.(C) No.19983 of 2020, this Court had directed the

7th respondent to take up Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioner seeking to

fix the fair value of the property having an extent of 73.71 ares in Block No.12

(Resurvey No.92/1-3, 92/2-4) (Old Survey No.213/1A, 216/4B) of Angamaly

Village.

2. The Contempt Case has been filed alleging non-compliance.

3. A memo has been filed by the learned Government Pleader

producing a copy of the communication dated 30.1.2021 issued by the Deputy

Tahsildar to the respondent herein. It is stated that the petitioner was informed

on 30.1.2021 that the fair value of the property had been fixed and if the

petitioner has any grievance, it is for him to prefer an appeal as per the

relevant rules.

4. In response, an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein it

is stated that the petitioner had approached the Sub Registrar, Angamaly and

he was told that the fair value of the property involved in this matter has not

been fixed. The petitioner has produced Annexures-A4 and A5 downloaded

from the website of the Registration Department wherein it is stated that the

fair value of the property comprised in Resurvey No.92/1 and 92/2 has already

been fixed but not the fair value of the property comprised in Block No.12

(Resurvey No.92/1-3, 92/2-4) (Old Survey No.213/1A, 216/4B) of Angamaly

Village.

5. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the

contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is

misconceived. Annexures-A4 and A5 produced by the petitioner itself would

cover the subdivisions as well is the submission. The said submission is

recorded.

6. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot have any

grievance. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the fixation of fair value, it is for

him to prefer an appeal in terms of the Rules.

The Contempt Case is closed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1225/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.19983 OF 2020 DATED 25.09.2020.

Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 19.10.2020 ALONG WITH ITS POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.

Annexure 3 A COPY OF THE LETTER NO.N-418/21 DATED 30.1.2021 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI

Annexure 4 A COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE FIXED FOR THE PROPERTY WITH BLOCK NO.12, RESURVEY NO.92/1 OF ANGAMALY VILLAGE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF GOVERNMENT

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL