Kerala High Court
Basheerkutty vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
W.P.(C).No.15418/2024
1
2025:KER:54195
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 15418 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BASHEERKUTTY, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. MOHAMMEDKUNJU, MUNDAKATHARAYIL
VEEDU, PADA -NORTH KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 690518
BY SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN (SR)
ADV SHRI.ABDUL SALIM M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE
SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL
STATION KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013
3 THE SUB COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013
4 TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690518
5 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY
CIVIL STATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O. KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 690518
SRI. E.C. BINEESH SR.PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.15418/2024
2
2025:KER:54195
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order passed by the 2 nd
respondent.
2. Initially the petitioner approached this Court by
filing writ petition as W.P.(C) No.17899 of 2022 being aggrieved
by the fixation of the fair value of the property covered by
Ext.P1 deed. The fair value of the property was fixed at
₹9,88,400/- per Are and thereafter it was reduced to
₹7,50,000/- per Are. The contention of the petitioner was that
the fair value of a similarly situated land was fixed at the rate of
Rs.3,75,000/- and that the petitioner's property did not have
any road access. This Court as per Ext.P8 judgment directed the
respondent No.2 to reconsider the fixation of fair value mainly
taking into account two factors:- (i) the fixation of fair value at
Rs.3,75,000/- in respect of the similarly situated land in Re-
Survey No.601/21 and (ii) the property does not have road
access as alleged by the petitioner.
3. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 conducted
fresh enquiry and Ext.P9 order was passed. It is challenging
Ext.P9, this writ petition has been filed.
4. I have heard Sri.N.N. Sugunapalan, the
2025:KER:54195
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.
Bineesh, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. In Ext.P8 judgment, this Court based on the
averments in the counter affidavit filed by the Government,
found that the property does not have road access. This Court
has also found that the Tahsildar (LR), Karunagappilly had
recommended the reduction of the fair value to ₹3,75,000/- as
done in the case of the land in Re-survey No.601/2021. There
was a specific direction to the 2 nd respondent to take into
account these two factors while reconsidering the issue in the
light of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the statement filed by the Sub
Collector. However, the perusal of Ext.P9 would show that the
3rd respondent has not taken into consideration these specific
directions. In the impugned judgment it is stated that the
property in question is a marshy land. It is also stated that the
property for which the fair value was fixed at the rate of
₹3,75,000/- is a similar land as that of the property of the
petitioner. But it was found that since the property of the
petitioner does have a better road access, the said fair value
cannot be taken into consideration while fixing the fair value of
the property of the petitioner. I am of the view that the said
approach of the 3rd respondent is not at all correct in view of the
2025:KER:54195
statement of the 3rd respondent that the property does not have
any road access. Hence, Ext.P9 order cannot be sustained and
requires reconsideration.
Accordingly, Ext.P9 is quashed and the 2 nd respondent
is directed to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner in
accordance with law and taking into account the observations
made in this judgment as well as Ext.P8 judgment. The
petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2 nd
respondent. The 2nd respondent shall dispose of the appeal
within two months thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
2025:KER:54195
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15418/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DEED NO.36/16
DATED 28.03.2016 OF THE SRO,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, EXECUTED BY HIS FATHER
LATE SRI. MOHAMMEDKUNJU.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE
DATED04.03.2017 ISSUED BY THEREGISTRAR
OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, KARUNAGAPPALLY,
MUNICIPALITY.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
01.04.2022 AS TAX PAID AGAINST 02.73
ARES OF LAND FOR THE YEAR 2021-22
ISSUED BY KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE
OFFICE.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED13.03.2020
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.RDO KLM/
365/2020J DATED 20-10-2022 FILED BY THE
SUB COLLECTOR KOLLAM BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M1-55655/20
DATED 22.02.2011 UNDER SECTION 5(4) OF
KERALA STAMP (FIXATION OF FAIR VALUE OF
LAND) RULES 1995 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. DC
KLM/4203/2020 M1 DATED 09.03.2022
ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
04.04.2023 IN WP(C) NO.17899/ 2022.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCKLM/ 4203/
2020-M1 DATED 01.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE
NATURE OF EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA GAZETTE
NOTIFICATION G.O.(P) NO.305/2022/ TAXES
DATED 30-03-2022
