Kerala High Court
K.Bhaskaran vs The State Of Kerala on 1 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 25865 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
K.BHASKARAN
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN, DARSHANA,
IRIVERIKOVIL ROAD, KUZHIKKUNNU,
KANNUR-670001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SRI.K.ASHIS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.,
LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 KANNUR MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KANNUR-670001.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KANNUR-II VILLAGE, KANNUR-670001.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT.S.AMBILY
SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
SMT.K.V.SHENU
SRI.ARUN ANTONY
SMT.M.MEENA JOHN, SC, KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
ADV. RASHMI K.M, 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. 25865 OF 2015
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
===================
WP(C) No. 25865 OF 2015
===================
Dated this the 1st day of September 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of landed
property in Re Survey No. 22 of Kannur-II amsom, Chalad
desom. The property which is lying adjacent to the said
property having an extent of 8 cents was taken on lease by the
petitioner as per Rule 12 of Assignment of Land within Municipal
and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995. Ext.P1 is the order of the
District Collector. Rs. 20,000/- was fixed as annual rent. It is the
case of the petitioner that, he has been remitting the amount so
fixed till the year 2015 without any fail. Ext.P2 is the receipt
dated 13.01.2015 showing the payment of an amount of
Rs.20,000/-. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, Ext.P3
was issued by the 3rd respondent on 25.06.2015 in which it is
WP(C) NO. 25865 OF 2015
stated that, the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.
12,26,904/- being the arrears as per the revised rate from the
year 2004. The case of the petitioner is that, Ext.P3 is passed
by the 3rd respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing
to him. The amount is fixed arbitrarily by the 3 rd respondent and
that also even without giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner challenge Ext.P3 order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the
2nd respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his
contention in the writ petition. The learned counsel submitted
that, Ext.P3 is a proceedings issued by the 3 rd respondent
without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The
learned counsel submitted that, in Ext.P3 it is stated that, such
a direction is issued based on some proceedings from the
Tahasildar. No notice is issued by the Tahasildar also to the
petitioner.
WP(C) NO. 25865 OF 2015
4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that,
Ext.P3 is issued based on the audit report of the Accountant
General. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, in the
audit report relating to taluk office, Kannur, it is noted that the
lease amount was collected based on the rates relating to the
year 2001 and has directed to assess the rate as per the market
rate during the period concerned. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.
12,26,904/- was fixed as arrears in this case by the Accountant
General which is to be collected from the petitioner. That is why
Ext.P3 is issued. The learned Government Pleader also
submitted that, after getting an interim order in this writ
petition, the petitioner is not paying the admitted rent as per
Ext.P1 also. The learned Government Pleader submitted that,
there is nothing to interfere against Ext.P3 proceedings.
5. Admittedly, it is clear from Ext.P1 that there is a lease
agreement. The lease amount is fixed as Rs. 20,000/-. Ext.P1 is
dated 06.12.2004. Thereafter, Ext.P3 is issued on 25.06.2015
stating that, there is arrears of Rs.12,26,904/- from the
WP(C) NO. 25865 OF 2015
petitioner. Admittedly, Ext.P3 proceedings is issued without
giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In such
circumstances, according to me, Ext.P3 violates the
fundamental principles of natural justice. I don't want to make
any observations about the merit of the case. According to me,
the 3rd respondent can be directed to reconsider the matter
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The
petitioner can be directed to pay the admitted rent arrears
within a time frame. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in
the following manner;
1. Ext.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent will give an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in
accordance to law about the matter referred in Ext.P3
proceedings.
3. The petitioner will pay the admitted arrears of rent as
per Ext.P1 within two months.
4. The 3rd respondent will consider the matter as
WP(C) NO. 25865 OF 2015
directed above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
(Sd/-)
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
LU
WP(C) NO. 25865 OF 2015
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25865/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 06-12-2004.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 13.01.2015
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 25.06.2015.
// True Copy // PA To Judge
