Kerala High Court
Kuriachan vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2963 OF 2013
PETITIONER/S:
KURIACHAN
S/O.ANTONY, ERINCHERY HOUSE, LATIN CHURCH ROAD,
THRISSUR-680 001.
BY ADV SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THRISSUR, PIN-680 003.
3 THE TAHSILDAR
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN-680 003.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN-680 003.
5 SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 003.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JACOB E. SIMON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2963 OF 2013
2
JUDGMENT
1. Order Ext.P5 by the District Collector, Thrissur rejecting
the appeal of the petitioner with regard to charging the stamp duty
as per Section 28 of the Kerala Stamp Act treating it to be a
residential building with a Corporation road access is under
challenge.
2. Petitioner is stated to be a owner of a registered land to
the extent of 4.86 Ares corresponding to 12 cents of immovable
property, in Sy.No.917/1 of Chembukavu (Thrissur) Village,
Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District as per the settlement deed dated
28.3.1980 vide document No.5216/1980, Ext.P1. Since some
financial liability was incurred owing to certain circumstances had
no other option but to raise the money for paying of the debt by
selling the property. Accordingly, on 24.1.2012 entered into an
agreement for sale with one Anshida Fahad, W/o Fahad Hamza
Ext.P2. The aforementioned property do not have any Corporation
road access but at that time was lying as a ditch having a depth of 5
feet without any useful purpose. The Revenue Divisional Officer in
exercise of powers under the Kerala Stamp (Fixation of Fair Value
of Land) Rules, 1995 fixed an amount of Rs.24,70,000/- per Are,
equivalent to Rs.10,00,000/- per cent, for residential plots with
WP(C) NO. 2963 OF 2013
corporation road access in Sy.No.917/1 vide Ext.P3.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the aforementioned valuation was wholly incorrect
and was based upon without ascertaining the factual aspect.
Having left with no other option preferred an appeal under Section
28A of the Act before the Collector. After having him given the
opportunity of hearing, the Collector rejected the application on the
ground that the adjacent property in the nearby area fetched more
value but did not touch the real and core issue, which was required
to be pondered and considered in view of the order Ext.P3 whether
the residential area purported to be sold through sale deed was
having a Corporation access. Thus there is an abdication.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader
submitted that the fair value fixed by the Government was under
the category Residential Plot with Corporation road access which
was published as far back as on 6.3.2010. The appeal was barred
by delay which was condoned. The order of the RDO assessing the
value of the land was found to be correct.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
appraised the paperbook. The appellate authority ie., the District
Collector in the present case is required to deal with the points
raised in appeal. However in the instant case, instead of laying focus
WP(C) NO. 2963 OF 2013
on the issue raised with regard to the fact that whether the property
subject matter of the sale, residential plot was having a Corporation
cess or otherwise. No survey report or spot inspection in this
regard had been made or previous record was checked to ascertain
such facts. But the centre of attraction was that the area adjacent
to the property fetched more value. This could have been another
reason for rejection but RDO did not deal with such issues. I am of
the view that to strike equity, it would be appropriate to revisit the
issue keeping in view the observation made herein above.
Accordingly, order Ext.P5 is set aside. Writ petition is allowed.
Respondent No.2, District Collector, Thrissur is directed to hear the
appeal in accordance with law and the observations made herein
above. The parties are at liberty to place on record additional
material in support of the submission and decide the same within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment.
SD/-
sab AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 2963 OF 2013
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1:- True copy of the Settlement Deed dated 28.03.1980.
Exhibit P2: True copy of the agreement dated 24.01.2012.
Exhibit P3:- True copy of the Kerala Gazette as downloaded from the
website of the Government of Kerala dated nil.
Exhibit P4: - True copy of the appeal along with the representation
dated 07.06.2012.
Exhibit P5: True copy of the order passed by the 2nd respondent
dated 06.12.2012.
