Aravindakshan Nair vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17815 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 16998 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, AGED 78 YEARS,
          S/O. LATE KANNAN MENON, EDATHALAKKATT, PALACHUVADU,
          VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KAKKANADU P.O.
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 030.

          BY ADVS.
          VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
          SUSANTH SHAJI



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
          DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 001.

    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 030.

    3     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682 001.

          BY ADVS. SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN, SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16998 OF 2021
                              -2-

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

impugning Ext.P7 order issued by the 2nd respondent

- District Collector, who is also the competent

Appellate Authority under the provisions of the

Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act', for short).

2. According to the Petitioner, Ext.P7 order

has been issued by the District Collector based on

Ext.P5 request made by him for reducing the fair

value of his property, comprised of in Sy.No.102/4

of the Vazhakala Village, wherein, even though it

has been classified as a 'wetland', its value has

been shown as Rs.12,74,000/- per Are.

3. The petitioner points out that, as is

evident from Ext.P4 order of the 3rd respondent -

Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), issued under the

provisions of Section 28A of the Act, "Government WP(C) NO. 16998 OF 2021

Property", "Residential Plot with

Corp./Mun./Panch. road access" and "Wetlands" have

been valued at the same rate, namely

Rs.12,74,000/- per Are; and asserts that this is

unreasonable and illogical. He says that it is,

therefore, that he preferred Ext.P5 Statutory

Appeal against Ext.P4; but that when Ext.P7 order

was issued by the District Collector/Appellate

Authority, he has proceeded on certain incorrect

factual basis finding that, as per the Basic Tax

Register (BTR), the fair value of the property of

the petitioner is Rs.6,37,000/- per Are.

4. The petitioner submits that, even though

the edifice of the District Collector's decision

is wrong, he is not aggrieved by the finding that

the value of the property can only be

Rs.6,37,000/-; but he points that this has not

been affirmatively declared in the said order - it

having confirmed Ext.P4, wherein the value shown WP(C) NO. 16998 OF 2021

is Rs.12,74,000/- per Are. The petitioner contends

that Ext.P7, therefore, creates great confusion

and consequently, prays that it be set aside and

the District Collector be directed to reconsider

the entire matter - particularly his contention

that "Government Land", "residential property with

municipal access" and "wetlands" cannot be valued

at the same rate, as has been done in Ext.P4 by

the RDO. The petitioner thus reiteratingly prays

that this writ petition be allowed and the

District Collector be directed to reconsider

Ext.P5 appeal, as per law, within a time frame to

be fixed by this Court.

5. The afore submissions, made by Sri.Susanth

Shaji - learned counsel for the petitioner, were

answered by the learned Senior Government Pleader

- Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan, conceding that, in

Ext.P7, the District Collector appears to have

proceeded under the impression that the fair value WP(C) NO. 16998 OF 2021

of the property, which is a wetland, is

Rs.6,37,000/- as per the BTR. He submitted that

this appears to be contrary to the Order of the

RDO, namely Ext.P4, wherein the value has been

shown as Rs.12,74,000/- per Are. He then submitted

that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined, the

District Collector will reconsider the matter, as

requested by the petitioner, adverting to his

contention that all types of lands, including

"wetland", cannot be valued at the same rate,

namely Rs.12,74,000/-, as has been done in Ext.P4.

6. When I consider the afore submissions and

examine Exts.P4, it is rendered without doubt that

the 3rd respondent - RDO, has valued the

petitioner's property at Rs.12,74,000/- per Are,

as also various other types of property, including

"Government Land" and "residential plots with road

access" at the same rate. Prima facie, this does

not appear to be proper, since "wetlands" can WP(C) NO. 16998 OF 2021

normally be not valued at the same rate as "Garden

land" and commercially viable properties.

7. That apart, when one examines Ext.P7, it

becomes ineluctable that the District Collector

appears to have proceeded on a wrong assumption

that, as per the Fair Value Register, the value of

the "wetland", including that of the property in

the survey number in question, is only

Rs.6,37,000/- per Are. Interestingly, if this is

the figure that the District Collector has found

pursuant to Ext.P5 appeal, then the petitioner

will be more than satisfied, since he has only

asked for the value of his land to be revalued at

Rs.6,00,000/- per Are.

8. However, the District Collector has not

done so, but has, in fact, confirmed Ext.P4,

incorrectly holding that as per the Fair Value

Register, the value of the petitioner's property

is Rs.6,37,000/-. This is clearly in error. WP(C) NO. 16998 OF 2021

9. In this afore circumstances, I deem it

appropriate that Ext.P7 be set aside, and that the

District Collector be directed to reconsider

Ext.P5 Statutory Appeal in terms of law.

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered and

Ext.P7 is set aside; with a consequential

direction to the 2nd respondent - District

Collector, to take up Ext.P5 Statutory Appeal of

the petitioner and issue a fresh order thereon, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

I make it clear that, while the afore exercise

is completed, the District Collector shall

specifically advert to the petitioner's contention

that the value of "Government Properties",

"residential plots with road access" and

"wetlands" cannot be the same, as has been done in

Ext.P4; and he shall make necessary enquiries in WP(C) NO. 16998 OF 2021

this regard, while issuing the resultant order.

This writ petition is thus disposed of.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 16998 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16998/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 884/1986 OF SRO, THRIKKAKKARA.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2347/2007 OF SRO, THRIKKAKKARA.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 02.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTO STAT COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.0.2021 IN WPC NO. 8592/2021 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT. P5 APPEAL.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE